Ugly scenes marred the end of Tuesday’s AFC Champions League Elite semifinal between Machida Zelvia of Japan and United Arab Emirates’ Shabab Al Ahli — and it was perhaps understandable why the latter were infuriated by the manner in which they had just been eliminated from Asian football’s premier club competition.

Shabab Al Ahli’s hopes of becoming champions of Asia had just come to an end in the penultimate stage of the tournament with a 1-0 loss, but they were adamant that tie should have been headed for extra-time after their 92nd-minute equaliser was disallowed.

The U.A.E side immediately remonstrated with referee Shaun Evans. Then once more at the final whistle, where the Australian official eventually required a police escort off the field as he was surrounded by a mob of seething Shabab Al Ahli players.

Peculiarly, and perhaps for the first time ever, it was a substitution that led to VAR intervention which prompted Evans to overturn his original decision of letting Guilherme Bala‘s brilliant solo effort stand.

So, what exactly caused the controversy?

After Machida had seemingly made their fifth and final substitution of the tie, they immediately started making appeals to Evans the moment Shabab Al Ahli restarted play from a throw-in — although the reason behind those were initially unclear.

Shabab Al Ahli worked the way from one flank to the other, where Bala embarked on a dazzling 40-yard run and proceeded to skip inside two opponents before unleashing an unstoppable effort in the far corner.

It sparked wild scenes of celebration in the Shabab Al Ahli camp but, almost immediately, Machida continued their pleas to Evans.

And when VAR — upon conducting its mandatory check — called Evans to the pitch-side monitor, things became clearer.

As Machida’s Hotaka Nakamura was still on the field of play, briefly exchanging words with the man who was about to replace him in Henry Heroki Mochizuki, Shabab Al Ahli defender Kauan Santos had already thrown the ball back into play.

It then goes down to the minute details. Nakamura was as good as off the field with one foot almost on the touchline. Barely a second later, Mochizuki was charging onto the pitch.

It initially appeared that Evans had not sensed anything was amiss because of such a fine margin. And the rules are the rules.

Machida will defend the decision by arguing they were — quite blatantly — unprepared for the restart, especially considering he was replacing Nakamura at right-wingback — down the exact side where Bala produced his moment of magic.

Still, even if it had been a legal restart, he probably might not have made it to his designated position considering he had the entire width of the field to cover. Indeed, when Bala’s shot hit the back of the net, Mochizuki had only made it as far as the middle of the box — filling in the central role that was vacated by captain Gen Shoji‘s own covering of the aforementioned void down the right.

Obviously, teams are not obliged to wait till their opponents are completely ready — and in their designated positions — after substitutions. In the grand scheme of things, Bala would probably still have scored even if Shabab Al Ahli had waited that extra second before restarting play. The fact of the matter is they didn’t.

But here’s where it gets even more intriguing. Evans’ whistle could be heard being blown, calling for play to be restarted. Whether or not it came before or after Santos’ throw-in is — again — so marginal that it is a difficult to determine in real-time.

This bit is purely conjecture but, at the juncture of the game when teams are often suspected of bringing on players to take time of the clock, and with Machida taking a bit of time to complete their substitution, he may have — in an attempt to force the Japanese team to get on with the game — called for Shabab Al Ahli to continue proceedings.

So, when VAR decided that there was a serious missed incident that warranted an on-field review, it is quite possible that it was one that had actually been instigated by Evans himself. Even then, if he had decided to restart play prematurely because Machida were wasting time, then wouldn’t he have been well within his rights to stick by his original decision?

After all, there is no law in the game that decrees both teams must have 11 players on the pitch for the game to go on. Even discounting the scenario of sending-offs, numerical discrepancies are commonplace when players require medical treatment off the field.

Expectedly, Shabab Al Ahli coach Paulo Sousa — who vacated his dugout for the remainder of the contest after the disallowed goal — was indignant after the game.

“There was a goal that was scored and then it was cancelled — this is a very technical mistake by ⁠the referee,” said Sousa. “Unfortunately, this is what is turning football into rubble. It was a big mistake to choose this referee for this match.

“What saddens me is the organisation [the Asian Football Confederation] choosing referees who aren’t up to the quality of this tournament, these players, and the coaches present.”

“We deserved to be in the final and we deserve to play this important game.”

Of course, nothing can now change the outcome of the contest. It is Machida who are moving on to Saturday’s decider — a story in itself considering this is their tournament debut and they were still in the second tier of Japanese football as recently as in 2023.

Nonetheless, Shabab Al Ahli are well within their rights to be aggrieved that they did not at least have extra-time, or even penalties, to pull off a victory of their own.

Not for the first time, VAR has courted controversy. But perhaps for the first time, over a substitution.