The split matters because it separates the process from the outcome. The commission’s reported decision challenges the punishment that followed the review. The panel’s conclusion supports the decision to involve VAR in the first place.
That distinction is central to modern officiating. A VAR intervention is not meant to guarantee that every final decision will survive later scrutiny. It is intended to identify a possible clear error and give the referee an opportunity to reassess the incident.
In this case, the report says that reassessment led to a red card, while the later commission review reached a different conclusion.
Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity requires several factors to align: the attacker’s direction, distance from goal, control of the ball and the position of covering defenders. Small differences in those details can change the disciplinary outcome.
The controversy underlines why these incidents remain among the hardest for officials to judge. A VAR may reasonably believe a review is warranted, yet the subsequent commission can still decide that the red-card threshold was not met.
For Brighton, the practical impact is also important. If the commission’s ruling removes the disciplinary consequence, Struijk’s availability should not be treated as settled until the relevant status is formally clarified. The report does not independently establish what follows next.
The next storyline will come before Brighton’s next fixture: whether the overturned decision has any remaining effect on Struijk and whether this case prompts further debate over VAR’s role in red-card incidents.