Why Chelsea’s goal stood against Arsenal despite recent controversies

Inconsistency has continued to affect decisions across several Premier League matches in recent seasons. Goals that appear straightforward are often reviewed extensively, with some being ruled out by VAR for interference, while others that seem identical are allowed to stand. This ongoing lack of uniformity has fuelled debate among supporters and analysts who are growing increasingly frustrated by unclear interpretations.

At the weekend, Chelsea’s goal was allowed to stand even though it appeared that Enzo Fernandez had impeded the Arsenal goalkeeper while standing in an offside position. In comparison, an earlier goal scored by Virgil van Dijk in a match between Liverpool and Manchester City was disallowed because Andy Robertson had been in an offside position and was judged to have obstructed the goalkeeper’s view. These contrasting decisions have reignited questions about how offside and interference are assessed in similar situations.

Why the Chelsea Goal Stood

Because of how the players were positioned in the box and around the goalkeeper during the weekend match, the incident did not prompt extensive discussion in the aftermath. Chelsea may feel fortunate that the goal was allowed, yet there appears to be a specific explanation behind the decision. According to the BBC, the goal was reviewed by VAR, who examined Fernandez’s position and his involvement in the play. The officials did not believe he was in a position to have a significant impact on the phase of play.

The review concluded that although Fernandez was close to Cristhian Mosquera, he did not block the goalkeeper or interfere in a way that warranted ruling out the goal. This interpretation ultimately allowed the equaliser to stand.

A Broader Issue in VAR Interpretation

The incident highlights the broader issue of subjectivity in VAR decisions, particularly in moments involving offside players near the goalkeeper. While some goals are overturned for minimal interference, others are permitted despite seemingly similar circumstances. As the season progresses, calls for greater consistency are likely to intensify, especially from clubs that feel disadvantaged by the current approach.

__________________________________________________________________________________________