Brighton's 3-0 win over Arsenal did not need a refereeing controversy to explain it.
The hosts were better. They had 17 attempts to Arsenal's nine, put five on target to Arsenal's two and had already built an emphatic lead before the most debated refereeing moment of the afternoon arrived deep into stoppage time.
Before kick-off, VarVote looked at Arsenal's remarkable run of three straight Premier League matches involving major VAR moments. The run continued at the Amex, although this time the decisive VAR discussion arrived when the match itself was effectively over.
What happened between Declan Rice and Malick Yalcouye still matters.
It matters because referee Darren England saw the incident and punished it. It matters because VAR then checked whether that punishment was enough. And it matters because the distinction VAR ultimately made — between petulance and violent conduct — is one of football's more difficult disciplinary lines. 
What happened?
With Brighton already leading 3-0, Yalcouye made contact with Rice after the ball had moved away. Rice reacted, followed the Brighton midfielder and swiped at his legs from behind.
England was close to the incident and showed Rice a yellow card.
That was not the end of the process. VAR checked the incident for a possible red card for violent conduct but did not recommend an on-field review. The yellow card stood.
According to talkSPORT's reporting of the Premier League explanation, VAR did not believe Rice's action reached the threshold for violent conduct. It was instead regarded as petulant behaviour.
That distinction is the heart of the debate.
Contact is not the real question
There is little point debating whether Rice made deliberate contact. The footage shows the reaction and the referee punished it.
The harder question is what that action should be called under the Laws of the Game.
Violent conduct does not require a player to seriously injure an opponent. The relevant issue is whether a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.
That leaves officials judging more than the existence of contact. They must assess the nature of the action, its force and whether it crosses the line from unsporting or reckless behaviour into violent conduct.
VAR's answer at Brighton was no.
Was Rice lucky anyway?
That does not mean the decision is beyond debate.
The incident immediately divided observers. talkSPORT's commentary team questioned why Rice had not been sent off, while ESPN's VAR review examined the same central issue: whether the retaliation was serious enough to justify upgrading England's yellow card.
Former Premier League referee Andy Davies told ESPN that Rice could consider himself fortunate, while also explaining why the action could remain below the threshold required for VAR intervention.
That distinction is important.
A player can be fortunate to avoid a red card without the VAR decision automatically being an error. VAR is not asked to decide whether a red card would also have been defensible. When reviewing a yellow-card incident for a possible straight red, the question is whether the on-field decision is sufficiently wrong to justify intervention. 
The threshold matters as much as the outcome
This is where the Rice incident becomes more interesting than a simple red-or-yellow argument.
England had already seen the incident and decided it warranted a booking. VAR therefore had to decide whether what he had seen was not merely worthy of punishment, but clearly serious enough to require a dismissal instead.
That is a much higher bar.
Supporters watching the same replay can reasonably reach different conclusions. Some will see retaliation away from the ball and ask what more should be required for violent conduct. Others will see a petulant trip or swipe with limited force and consider yellow proportionate.
Both views lead back to the same question: where exactly does the Premier League want that line drawn?
Brighton's win should not become a VAR story
There is another distinction worth making.
None of this explains Arsenal's defeat.
Pascal Gross, Charalampos Kostoulas and Chema Andres had already put Brighton 3-0 ahead. Arsenal managed only two attempts on target, and Mikel Arteta acknowledged afterwards that Brighton deserved to win.
The Rice incident happened when the contest was effectively over. Turning the result itself into a VAR controversy would distort what happened at the Amex.
But analysing the decision does not require doing that.
Brighton deserved the three points. Rice's challenge still gives us a useful test of how the Premier League distinguishes a yellow-card act of retaliation from violent conduct worthy of a straight red.
Those two things can both be true.
What happens next?
The most useful next piece of evidence may come from the Premier League's own refereeing review process.
If the incident is assessed through the league's Key Match Incidents process, that will give another indication of whether the wider refereeing panel agrees that England and VAR got the threshold right.
Until then, the official outcome is clear: England saw the incident, Rice was booked, VAR checked for violent conduct and the yellow card remained.
The more interesting question is not whether VAR looked at it.
It is why, after looking, VAR decided this was still yellow rather than red.