'Reversed zero conditional' is not a term I'm happy with; I still prefer 'inferential', where the intention is to present an inference, rather than cause+effect. But perhaps some
ESL students would find it easier to think in terms of 'variations on type 0/3 if-statements', rather than 'non-type-0/3 if-statements'.
The structure here is similar to your 'Joe' example. We can reduce it to:
1. If Chelsea don't win, someone has tapped up the ref. →
2. If Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.
If we accept that the term 'zero conditional' can be used not only to present a 'scientific truth', but also (by analogy) to present a personal belief, as in your example, we can say that #2 is a derivative of this 'zero conditional':
3. When someone taps up the ref, Chelsea don't win.
In #3, we have 'If P, next Q'. In #2, we have 'If Q, it's because P' (i.e. the 'reversed' version of #3):
4. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone taps up the ref.
4a. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.
The use of the present perfect in #1 may seem to rule out the 'zero conditional'. Indeed, most of the analyses of If-statements I've seen seem to ignore the present perfect altogether, although it's fairly common in such structures – where emphasis is required, for example:
5. If he
has already signed, the contract will need to be reviewed.
But to my mind, a present perfect in either protasis or apodosis (or both) can equally present a universal law:
6. If you heat water to 100C, it boils. →
7. If you have heated water to 101C, it has boiled.
Therefore it seems definable as a 'zero conditional'.
From which I conclude that this sentence can be classed as a 'reversed zero conditional':
8. If Chelsea don't win tomorrow, someone has tapped up the ref.
MrP