“He’s been incredibly lucky. I’ve looked at the footage from three different angles and the point of contact is high, with force, and the studs are showing. It is a clear red card for serious foul play. I’m baffled as to why the VAR didn’t send the referee to the monitor—it’s a major escape for Chelsea”, Keith Hackett drops a bombshell on the Enzo Fernández incident

The VAR Enigma: Hackett’s Damning Verdict on Chelsea’s “Major Escape”

In the high-stakes, slow-motion theater of modern football officiating, where every frame is dissected and every decision is a potential turning point, an unambiguous verdict from a former head of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) carries the weight of a supreme court ruling. Keith Hackett, the man who once oversaw England’s referees, has not merely questioned a decision from Chelsea’s recent match; he has delivered a forensic, multi-angle indictment that labels a key moment not as a borderline call, but as a catastrophic failure of the Video Assistant Referee system. His analysis transforms what was a contentious talking point into a scandal of omission.

**”He’s been incredibly lucky,”** Hackett began, his choice of words immediately framing the incident not as a 50/50 challenge, but as an infraction where the correct outcome was obvious and the player’s avoidance of sanction was fortuitous—a “major escape.” The subject of this escape is Enzo Fernández, whose tackle has now been placed under Hackett’s expert microscope.

The methodology of Hackett’s critique is what gives it such devastating authority. This is not a knee-jerk reaction from a single replay. **”I’ve looked at the footage from three different angles,”** he stated, establishing a comprehensive, technical review process. From this multi-perspective analysis, his conclusions are delivered with chilling, technical precision—the language of the Laws of the Game itself.

He broke down the tackle into its constituent, offending parts:
1. **”The point of contact is high…”** – This speaks to a lack of control and endangerment of an opponent.
2. **”…with force…”** – This eliminates any argument of a careless or merely reckless challenge, elevating it to one of excessive intensity.
3. **”…and the studs are showing.”** – The image of the studs exposed and making contact is the textbook visual for a dangerous, potentially leg-breaking challenge.

The summation of these elements leads Hackett to one inescapable, professional conclusion: **”It is a clear red card for serious foul play.”** The phrase “clear red card” is the official’s ultimate pronouncement, leaving no room for debate on the severity. By citing “serious foul play,” he references the specific Law 12 offence, grounding his opinion in the black-and-white text of the rulebook, not just subjective feeling.

The true bombshell, however, is where Hackett directs his fury: not at the on-field referee, who has a split-second to judge, but at the safety net designed to correct such errors. **”I’m baffled as to why the VAR didn’t send the referee to the monitor.”** This is the core of the crisis. Hackett’s “bafflement” stems from a fundamental breach of protocol. VAR exists as a corrective tool for “clear and obvious errors” in red-card situations. In his expert view, this was the very definition of one. The failure of VAR to intervene is, therefore, not a differing opinion, but a systemic failure—a dereliction of duty by the officials in the Stockley Park hub.

The “Major Escape” and Its Implications

By declaring it a “major escape for Chelsea,” Hackett underscores the tangible, game-altering consequence of the error. A red card for Fernández would have forced Chelsea to play a significant portion of the match with ten men, fundamentally shifting the tactical landscape and likely impacting the result. The non-decision, therefore, bestowed an unfair, and in Hackett’s view, unjustified competitive advantage.

The Bigger Picture: Eroding Trust in the System

Hackett’s intervention is significant because it comes from within the architecture of officiating itself. When a former PGMOL chief is “baffled” by a VAR non-intervention, it erodes public and professional trust in the entire system. It raises the alarming question: if an incident this “clear” to a top expert is not deemed worthy of an on-field review, what exactly is the threshold for VAR? Is the system failing to apply the laws consistently, or is it being applied with a paralyzing conservatism that defeats its very purpose?

Conclusion: A Verdict That Demands Accountability

Keith Hackett has not just criticized a decision; he has filed an expert report that finds the VAR process guilty of a major error. His use of technical language (“point of contact,” “force,” “studs showing,” “serious foul play”) builds an irrefutable case according to the laws he helped administer. His bafflement at VAR’s inaction is a damning verdict on its current application.

For Chelsea, it is confirmation of a fortunate reprieve. For the Premier League and PGMOL, it is a very public, highly credible accusation of a system failure. The incident involving Enzo Fernández may be over, but the questions raised by Hackett’s bombshell analysis will linger, demanding answers and accountability from those entrusted with upholding the game’s integrity. In the court of officiating opinion, a former chief has ruled, and his judgment is one of profound failure.