bearing in mind VAR wasnt able to review the sheff utd goal v villa last year when goal line tech failed i'd assume not!
Based strictly on the Laws of the Game (i.e. absent any instruction from the referee administration body), VAR would have been able to review the Villa-Sheffield United goal because the play in question was a goal/no goal situation. That's one of the four situations that the Laws explicitly cover in its VAR protocol.
Now the question about whether PGMOL wanted its referees to be on the lookout for a play like this or just go with the goal line tech is a completely different situation. I obviously don't know what instruction PGMOL is providing its officials. However, if they said something to the effect of "Goal line technology will deal with balls over the line for a goal - VAR does not need to worry about that at all", then that is a major mistake in my opinion. I get that GLT is the first line of defense. But if I'm the VAR and I have a replay that clearly and obviously shows the ball was completely over the line - as the replays I saw on the United States NBC broadcast clearly seemed to indicate - then I'd want to inform my referee that I saw this happen.
The Villa-Sheffield play was a classic example to me about why VAR is such a mess. If we are truly looking at "minimum interference, maximum benefit", this type of play would be the poster child for what VAR could do if utilized more effectively. The Pepe send-off was another good example of that this weekend, as VAR spotted a behind-the-play violent conduct situation that (apparently) wasn't caught by the on-field officials since Taylor issued the send-off after the VAR review. Instead, we are more concerned about drawing lines to see if a toenail is offside in the buildup. As I've said before, I think VAR is more about proving how cool the technology is instead of fixing important decisions that were clearly and obviously called wrong on the field.
In the Orlando-NYCFC situation, there really isn't a situation where a VAR should be able to help correct a situation like this when strictly reading VAR protocol. You can't shoehorn this into "mistaken identity", because the parenthetical reference clearly states this relates to misconduct. Now, if you take that out, I could broadly interpret "mistaken identity" to cover substitutes mistakenly identified as being able to enter the game. But admittedly, that's some creative interpretation.
However, if the ultimate goal is to get it right and avoid protests that can trigger a replay (which at the end of the day, should be the goal of any official), then VAR should be able to provide assistance.
The best way I could see to cover this is to add a fifth principle where VAR can help on-field officials identify errors in law. That way, VAR can "legally" assist the referee crew on a situation like this.