Comment of the Committee of Referees of the UAF regarding the referees' interpretation of individual game episodes of the matches of the 20th and 21st rounds of the Vbet League-2023/2024

21.03.2024 15:50

Referees Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association together with arbitration consultant Nikolay Rizzoli explained the interpretation of individual game episodes of the matches 20th and 21th rounds of Vbet Ukrainian Cup Round of XNUMX Leagues-2023/2024.

20-th round

«Chornomorets"-"Vorskla". Arbitrator — Dmytro Yevtukhov. VAA Referee — Oleksandr Omelchenko.

13 minutes.

A borderline situation. The attacker increases the contact significantly, trying to earn a simple penalty. The main evaluation criterion in this case is who creates the contact.

A more correct answer is a defender who, trying to reach the ball, trips the opponent, and then a penalty should be awarded here.

If the answer is the attacker leaving his foot to find or make contact with the defender, then this should be penalized as simulation.

For this reason, the referee's decision on the field is clear - he prefers the second possibility.

We remind you that in order to issue a yellow card, the simulation must be clear.

The VAA is limited to a silent review without full evidence that the contact was made solely by the defender.

«Metalist 1925"-"LNZ". Arbitrator — Serhii Zadiran. VAA Referee — Yaroslav Kozyk.

33 min.

The referee, being in an excellent position, evaluates the actions of the defender as random, and the position of his hands as corresponding to the movements (running).

Evaluation criteria:

— hands in a natural position;

— the hand is pressed to the body;

— the ball moves to the hand;

— close distance;

— an unexpected trajectory of the ball's flight.

The referee's decision to continue the game is correct.

83 min.

The referee considered the contact between the hand and the ball to be accidental, and the hand to be in a natural position. If we reread the assessment criteria, the referee should have stopped the game and punished the contact between the hand and the ball with an 11-meter kick, which was done after the correct intervention of the FAA.

«Zorya"-"Mynai". Arbitrator — Dmytro Bondarenko. VAA Referee — Oleksandr Sandor.

51 minutes.

The referee, despite the excellent position and control of the situation, evaluates the player's actions as a serious game violation. In this situation, there are no criteria for evaluating the episode as a violation committed with excessive force, both in terms of intensity and in terms of the point of contact.

The WAA referee, having evaluated the video that he had, intervenes correctly and first shows the typology of the offense (it is not a CIP and therefore it is not a red card), and then shows the general picture and dynamics, because with this offense the defender disrupts important games actions (disruption of prospective attack).

«Polissya"-"Oleksandriya". Arbitrator — Yuriy Ivanov. Referee VAA — Denis Shurman.

60 minutes.

The referee's view, despite his excellent position, is obstructed by several players and he may not be able to see the situation properly. The defender (#25 Alexandria) isn't actually committing a foul - he's just running alongside an attacker who loses his balance after making normal play contact. In reality, this contact is not in the nature of a violation (except that the defender's foot is in front of the attacker's foot).

The correct decision is not to award a penalty kick.

This is a difficult decision for the WAA arbitrator, and he is limited to a silent review, without full evidence that the defender did not commit a violation.

«Veres"-"Dynamo". Arbitrator — Dmytro Panchyshyn. VAA Referee — Vitaly Romanov.

90 + 3 min

The referee, despite the excellent position and control of the situation, evaluates as a violation the action of the attacker, who, on the contrary, is ahead of the correctly executed tackle of the defender, which, in an attempt to kick the ball, clearly strikes the opponent in the leg.

From the camera behind the goal, you can clearly see that the attacker is clearly ahead of the opponent, and these actions are absolutely not a violation; and after the attacker has played, the defender kicks him in the foot.

The VAA referee, having read the dynamics of the situation and reviewed all the available video footage from different viewing angles, correctly recommends the referee to review the episode on the field, after which an 11-meter kick is correctly awarded.

21-th round

«Metalist 1925» — «Rukh". Arbitrator — Klim Zabroda. Referee VAA — Mykola Balakin.

48 minutes.

Player No. 93 of "Rukh" makes a strong unfair contact with the head of the opponent (goalkeeper) with his spikes, which clearly threatens the safety of the opponent. The arbitrator cannot determine the seriousness of the violation and only warns the violator. The WAA referee correctly recommends watching the episode on the field, after which the referee correctly sends off the offender for a flagrant foul.

87 minutes.

The referee, despite his excellent position and control of the situation, mistakenly awards a penalty kick for handball.

The referee of the VAA, having reviewed the video footage from different viewing angles (the contact of the ball occurred with the body of the defender, not with the hand), correctly recommends the referee to review the episode on the field, after which the scored goal is correctly canceled.

"LNZ" — "Dnipro-1". Arbitrator — Oleksandr Afanasyev. VAA Referee — Viktor Kopievskyi.

47 minutes.

The referee considered the contact between the hand and the ball to be accidental, and the hand to be in a natural position. If we reread the evaluation criteria, then he should have stopped the game and punished the contact between the hand and the ball with a free kick.

Evaluation criteria:

— the ball flies from afar and slowly;

— the hand is widely set back, and it affects the trajectory of the ball's flight;

— the hand moves towards the ball, which allows the attacker to control and take possession of it.

The WAA referee should have recommended a review of the episode on the pitch, given that the attacking action started with the attacker taking possession of the ball after a handball, so it is a PFAD (Initial Phase of Attacking Action).

"Obolon" — «Polissya». Referee — Denis Shurman. Referee VAA — Roman Blavatsky.

2 minutes.

The referee correctly assessed the duel between the defender and the attacker as a foul. He also correctly assessed the dynamic as ZOGM (disruption of an obvious scoring opportunity) and showed a red card.

Evaluation criteria:

— direction to the gate;

— distance from the place where the violation was committed;

— the number of defenders who had the opportunity to intervene in the actions of the attacker heading for the goal;

— possession of the ball by the attacker.

All four criteria for ZOGM are present, so the decision is correct.

The arbitrator of the VAA is limited to a silent check.

89 minutes.

The referee, being in an excellent position, evaluates the defender's actions as legitimate. The attacker significantly increases the contact, trying to earn a penalty. For this reason, the referee's decision on the field is understandable.

The arbitrator of the VAA is limited to a silent check.