Arsenal's narrow 1-0 victory over Hull City wasn't without controversy and two experts have determined whether Kai Havertz should have been awarded a penalty.

Martin Odegaard scored the winner for the Gunners, pouncing in the 72nd minute to hand his side all three points and move six points clear of Manchester City heading into November's international break. They came up against a resilient Hull team but Mikel Arteta's attackers were disappointing on the day.

While Odegaard's winner came during open play, he might have already put the hosts in front in the first half from the penalty spot. VAR sent referee Farai Hallam to the pitchside monitor to review an incident between Havertz and Nobel Mendy which led to the German attacker going down in the box.

Dale Johnson Claims Arsenal Wrongfully Denied Penalty vs Hull

Hallam explained that although Mendy committed a foul by pulling Havertz to the ground, the decision was a free-kick to Hull because the Arsenal player was in an offside position. VAR's decision to send the referee to the monitor drew scrutiny itself due to the outcome of the review.

BBC Sport's football issues correspondent Dale Johnson has now claimed that Hallam and the officiating team were in correct. He stated that a player in an offside position only becomes active when committing an offside offence.

Johnson clarified that Havertz had not committed such an offence as he didn't challenge for the ball and therefore Mendy's shirt pull takes precedence. He also pointed out that 'the foul took place before any offside offence' but in the end it need not matter as Arteta's men secured all three points.

A similar incident occurred last season between Newcastle United and Bournemouth when Fabian Schar won a penalty after being pulled back from an offside position. On that occasion, VAR's intervention led to a spot-kick being awarded much like.

Arsenal fans were also quick to recall Harry Kane similarly winning a penalty against them back in March 2019. The FA rules stated at that time that 'a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence.'

Keith Hackett Agrees With Decision

Former PGMOL chief Keith Hackett of Football Insider interestingly disagreed with Johnson and claimed that Hallam came to the right decision. He did acknowledge that reviewing the incident was unnecessary and should have been prioritised before assessing the foul.

Hackett said: "It is clear that offside is the first offence and therefore the game should restart with an indirect free kick to the defending team. I'm amazed that the offside consideration was not looked at immediately. The correct decision, albeit the wrong way to get to it!"

Arteta didn't seem as angered by the decision as expected given his team prevailed. But he did suggest that he thought it was a penalty when speaking during his post-match press conference, telling reporters that his team 'were one-on-one with the goalkeeper twice today, there’s a penalty there, and so many shots were deflected or blocked.'