Pascal Struijk’s red card has ignited a fierce debate, with two independent panels arriving at opposing conclusions regarding the Brighton defender's dismissal during Brighton's 2-0 victory over Sunderland earlier this month. Struijk was shown a red card for allegedly denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity after a foul on Sunderland striker Wilson Isidor.

Initially, neither referee Thomas Bramall nor his assistant called a foul, but VAR official Neil Davies recommended a review. After examining multiple replays, Bramall reversed his decision, leading to Struijk's ejection.

Brighton contested the decision, and an independent regulatory commission, convened by the FA, overturned the red card and the resultant one-match ban. However, the Key Match Incidents (KMI) panel later voted 3-2 to uphold the VAR's intervention, stating that Struijk’s foul was a "cynical" act that impacted Isidor's chances of gaining possession.

Despite this, two KMI panellists disagreed, arguing that it was subjective whether Isidor would have reached the ball. The Premier League clarified that differing conclusions from the KMI panel and the regulatory commission are expected due to their distinct purposes.

Red cards for denying goal-scoring opportunities are uncommon following VAR reviews, with only three occurrences last season. This season, VAR is adopting a "lighter-touch" approach to minimize interference with on-field decisions. Former Premier League referee Mike Dean described the decision as harsh, asserting that it was not a clear error deserving VAR intervention. Dermot Gallagher, another ex-referee, expressed that while it was a foul, it could be considered a possible goal-scoring opportunity, warranting a yellow card instead.

Sky Sports analysts Michael Dawson and Jay Bothroyd echoed the sentiment that the decision was subjective, suggesting that VAR should not have intervened in this instance.