The red card controversially shown to Brighton defender Pascal Struijk at Sunderland after an intervention by the video assistant referee (VAR) has been overturned.
Struijk was sent off after 57 minutes of Saturday’s match at the Stadium of Light when he was adjudged to have fouled Sunderland forward Wilson Isidor as he tried to run on to a through-ball.
Neither referee Thomas Bramall nor his assistant gave a foul initially, but VAR Neil Davies intervened and called the on-field official to the screen.
After watching the replay multiple times, Bramall showed Struijk a straight red card for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
The decision, which was greeted with disbelief from the Brighton players, has now been reversed following a successful claim of wrongful dismissal.
The outcome of the appeal means Struijk will not have to serve a one-match ban and will now be available to face Crystal Palace in the Premier League this weekend.
Struijk joined Brighton from Leeds in a £20m move in the summer, and was making his second Premier League start for his new club.
Despite the red card, Brighton went on to win the match 2-0 and continue their strong start to the season.
The Seagulls are third, five points behind leaders Manchester City.
Analysis: Referee should have rejected VAR advice
If Struijk had been sent off by referee Bramall it would have been a poor decision. That it came via a VAR intervention is much worse.
Red cards for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity via video review are rare, simply because there are so many subjective considerations.
Last season, for instance, there were three – for Liverpool’s Dominik Szoboszlai, Crystal Palace’s Maxence Lacroix and Bournemouth’s Marcos Senesi (though this was wrongly rejected at the monitor).
There was far too much doubt that Isidor would get to the ball before Bart Verbruggen. That means it was a possible goalscoring opportunity rather than obvious.
With such a high bar on VAR in the Premier League, Bramall should not have been sent to the monitor.
Perhaps when sent to the screen, his judgement was clouded because he did not give a foul. But it was the kind of situation where the referee should be rejecting the advice of the VAR.