If the reported sequence is accurate, the key distinction is disciplinary severity. A cautionable kick does not erase a subsequent act that reaches the threshold for violent conduct.
That leaves Foden facing the more serious sanction, even if Fernandes was responsible for starting the exchange. Retaliation is not automatically excused by provocation, particularly when the response is judged to be excessive or deliberate.
The difficult question is whether both decisions can be considered correct. On the laws, they can. On the pitch, the sequence may still feel uneven to the team that sees the initial act go unpunished.
The reported explanation also highlights the limits of video review. VAR can recommend a review for a possible red card, but it does not normally intervene simply to award a missed yellow card.
That means a bookable offence by Fernandes would have remained the responsibility of the on-field officials unless it met the threshold for a sending-off offence. The system is designed to correct major errors, not revisit every missed caution.
The incident underlines why officials must identify the first flashpoint quickly. Once retaliation occurs, the second action often becomes the headline decision, while the original offence is reduced to background.
For players, the lesson is equally clear: reacting to a kick or challenge can carry a heavier punishment than the act that provoked it. For referees, consistency will be judged not only by the red card but also by how accurately the entire sequence is managed.
The next Manchester derby will bring the same scrutiny to any flashpoint. The storyline to watch is whether officials can punish provocation and retaliation separately before a minor incident becomes a major disciplinary moment.