[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It is going to be really interesting to hear why that is not a red card.

I feel like I learn something every week from Dale Johnson's column. I did not know that match commentators can hear the VAR dialogue though not the refs during these reviews. I wonder which match commentators have this access and if they continue to act clueless despite having at least this bit and supposedly having an understanding of how the system works. Once again, I listened to the match commentators on the EPL worldwide feed crushing the VAR for missing an obvious red card and for taking a long time to miss it.

The VAR Review: Ziyech red card explained, Saka penalty

Red card overturned: No violent conduct by Ziyech on Royal

What happened: Just before half-time, players from both sides squared up to each other. After a long period of deliberation, referee Stuart Attwell sent off Hakim Ziyech on the advice of his assistant, Darren Cann, alongside input from the VAR, Paul Tierney. However, after the red card was shown the VAR immediately instigated a review for a clear and obvious error (watch here.)

VAR decision: Red card cancelled.

VAR review: How could anyone be blamed for being confused? With the way VAR operates, everyone is left guessing -- and indeed assuming this was an error in process by the officials.

Yet despite all this, VAR protocol was followed to the letter. This wasn't a situation wrong on the pitch or in the VAR room.

In short, even though the VAR doesn't think Ziyech's actions are a red-card offence, he cannot tell Attwell they aren't a red-card offence before Attwell has decided whether or not they are a red-card offence. Clear?

Fans, pundits and indeed the match commentators (who can hear the VAR but, crucially, not the referee) were left to fill in the blanks. Until FIFA and the IFAB finally embrace the need to share the conversations between referee and VAR as they happen -- both on TV and inside the stadium -- the gap in understanding and acceptance will only widen.

To explain why the officials got this right, even though it took 4½ minutes, let's run through the timeline.

- Play stopped when Ziyech challenged Richarlison, which led to a melee between several players.
- After the situation had calmed down, referee Attwell discussed possible sanctions with Cann.
- Attwell decided to book Kai Havertz (foul) and Emerson Royal (push) for their roles.
- Cann told Attwell he had seen a hand go directly into a player's face, and this was a red-card offence.
- Attwell and Cann were not sure who had committed the red-card offence.
- Attwell told the VAR he was going to send a player off, and asked him to confirm who the player was.
- The VAR tells Attwell it was Ziyech.
- Attwell shows the red card to Ziyech, at which point the VAR's role in a review of a decision is active.
- The VAR tells the referee this is a clear and obvious error.
- Attwell reverses the decision at the monitor.

Why was Havertz booked?

Attwell books Havertz for an initial challenge on Richarlison before the flare up, when he took a swipe at the Tottenham striker in an attempt to trip him.
Shouldn't Ziyech have been cautioned for the original challenge?

Ziyech then tried to tackle Richarlison and may have won the ball. Despite the ensuing melee, Ziyech isn't considered to have committed any offence at this point. The VAR cannot tell Attwell that Ziyech should have been booked. The only way the VAR could intervene on this aspect is if Attwell had incorrectly cautioned Havertz for the challenge made by Ziyech, then the yellow could have been switched to Ziyech on mistaken identity. This could technically have resulted in Ziyech still being sent off -- the red card being downgraded to yellow for the push, and the yellow shown to Havertz transferred to him.

Why did the VAR help issue a red card, only to then advise it was wrong?

Attwell had turned to his left just as Ziyech raised his hand toward Royal and didn't see it. It's Cann who believed he saw the hand straight into the face from a Chelsea player.

A cornerstone of the VAR process is a referee must always take a decision first. So the VAR cannot make any suggestion about a possible sanction before the referee has made his own decision, but the VAR can help with identification. Ergo, a VAR can tell the referee who the offender was, but he couldn't tell the referee if he should or shouldn't show a red card. Attwell will say to Tierney he's going to show a red card, but ask for confirmation who that player is.

Once Attwell has shown the red card to Ziyech, that then brings the VAR into play for a review of the decision.

Why can't the VAR just tell the referee it's not a red card?

This situation was unlike many others. Though it took 4½ minutes, only the final 1½ minutes actually involved the VAR process -- the other three were used up by the melee, discussions among the match officials and the disciplinary action.

The only difference to a normal situation is that Cann couldn't identify Ziyech; the aid of the VAR was needed for that.

If you shift the process to a VAR giving his opinion on a decision before a referee has made his own mind up, then the VAR becomes the de facto referee. The on-field decision has to remain the most important element.

Was the VAR overturn correct?

As Ziyech clearly didn't push Royal directly in the face, his hand slipping off the Spurs player's shoulder, a red card can be viewed as a clear and obvious error.