British media: VAR should have asked Oliver to review Enzo's interference with Lisandro Martinez

In an article, British journalist Dale Johnson wrote that VAR should have asked referee Oliver to review the footage and consider whether Enzo impacted Lisandro Martinez.

British media stated that the perplexing aspect of this incident is that Haaland's goal was initially disallowed for the wrong reason. He was ruled offside when, in fact, he was not. However, the goal should have been disallowed because Enzo was offside.

A key clause in the offside rule applies to Enzo's situation. A player is considered offside if they:

"clearly attempt to play a ball which is close, when this action impacts on an opponent."

Both parts of this clause must be met. It is possible for an offside player to attempt to play the ball without committing an offense—but there must be an impact on an opponent.

As the ball came in, Enzo lunged at it, attempting to head it, while Lisandro Martinez was right behind him.

VAR official Matt Donohue should have asked himself whether Enzo's actions influenced Lisandro Martinez.

In other words: if Enzo had not jumped to challenge for the header, would Lisandro Martinez have dealt with the ball differently?

If neither Enzo nor Lisandro Martinez could reach the ball, then the goal should have stood.

Furthermore: if Enzo had not attempted to play the ball, there would have been no offside.

But he did. And the ball flew just a yard past Lisandro Martinez, so it is difficult to deny that Enzo was offside.

There is also the view that Enzo's movement affected goalkeeper Ramsdale's positioning.

However, the goal was initially disallowed because Haaland was offside—which was incorrect. Therefore, this decision must be overturned.

Then, VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to review the footage to determine whether Enzo had committed a subjective foul.

This would create an unusual situation where a disallowed goal is reviewed and still ruled out—but that is what should have happened.

Enzo was clearly offside, and this would constitute a VAR error.

Was VAR too focused on whether Enzo touched the ball?

If so, did VAR overlook Enzo being offside and fail to consider the subjective foul? This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

AF's PC site is now live! Browse full news, comments, match details and stats on your computer. Visit: www.allfootballapp.com