It's all very confusing, huh?! For what it's worth, I think your post in reply to mine above was excellent, @Bradley Smith. Walking through the order of operations makes it pretty clear what happened. And that was borne out by the PGMOL statement (though the language could be a little crisper). I do think the issue you and @socal lurker identified with the DOGSO foul is an interesting one, though. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a grey area in VAR protocols with HUGE consequences. If we stipulate the VAR does not think the Shaw challenge is SFP... If the referee must first affirm the VAR recommendation that it was a DOGSO red card, then there is a real possibility that the result is a DFK going in for Manchester United because there is a chance the referee will disagree with the VAR. Yet, almost perversely, if he concurs it's a red card then it becomes almost 100% certain that the red card won't be shown and the free kick will move 75 yards down the other end and be given to the other team! And, of course, if he looks at the APP foul first, the red card discussion is moot. Even though the APP foul is only relevant if the red card is definitely going to be awarded. So we've kind of circumvented or skipped the requirement that the referee agree with the VAR on the DOGSO red card--by showing the APP foul first, we are sort of just presuming there will be agreement. I think I know the answer for what MLS would instruct here but I also believe it's so rare that I bet not all MLS VARs would agree on proper procedure. I'll do some digging and try to get the "correct" answer but this one is weird enough that I think different competitions might instruct it different ways... if they instruct for it at all.