I think they have made a bit of a mess of the protocol. It looks like Attwell has effectively asked for help in identifying who the offender was, which makes it a referee initiated review, which is allowed if the referee believes that something serious has been missed. The VAR then describes to the referee what he has seen and the referee can either show the TV signal and go for a look, or make a
final decision based on the information from the VAR.
I've highlighted the word final as he didn't make a TV signal initially before showing the red card, so it has to be that second possibility, and that is clear that this is a final decision. It can't be a final decision if you then go and have a look at the screen and change your mind. What we think has happened is ...
- on-pitch officials see what they believe was VC but don't get the offender
- referee asks VAR to identifier offender
- VAR give Ziyech's number
- Attwell shows the red card
- VAR recommend a review as they don't feel it was VC
- Attwell watches footage and downgrades to caution
As far as I can see only two outcomes are supportable.
- No card is given in which case VAR review to see if there has been a clear and obvious error
- Red or yellow card is given to who they think it was and VAR review to see if there has been a clear and obvious error. This could result in ...
- review being recommended due to colour of card being viewed as a clear and obvious error
- VAR can advise the referee that the card was correct but issued to the wrong player, in which case it is switched to the correct player. No need for an on-pitch review for this. VAR can only check for mistaken identity after a card has been shown.
The relevant part of law that I think supports this is below.
View attachment 6395