Main UEFA F.A. Referee Expert Nicola Rizzoli commented on the refereeing incidents of the First League PFL match "Bukovyna" - "Agrobusiness" in the 8th round and matches from the 7th round of Vbet League-2023/2024: "Kryvbas" - "Veres", "Shakhtar" - "Obolon'", "LNZ" - "Ruh" and "Olexandria" - "Minay".

First League PFL. 8th round

"Bukovyna" - "Agrobusiness". Referee - Artem Mikhailuk.

8 min.

Decision on the field: no foul.

Correct decision: no foul.

Explanation/considerations: The attacker entering the penalty area from the left side makes a pass to the center of the penalty area, and the defender attempts to engage in one-on-one play while fully controlling their body. The ball hits the defender's left hand that is naturally positioned behind the back and pressed against the body. There is no movement of the hand towards the ball, so this dynamic should be considered a natural movement of the hand that is not extended or such as to increase the volume of the body. It must also be noted that the defender remains on their feet and runs while fully controlling their body movements. Given these reasons, the referee's decision is correct because it involves contact between the hand and the ball without any penalty.

VAR: If VAR had been used in this match, it would have limited itself to reviewing video footage and confirming that the referee made the right decision (silent check).

Vbet League. 7th round

"Kryvbas" - "Veres". Referee - Anastasiia Romanyuk.

32 min.

Decision on the field: penalty kick without card.

Correct decision: penalty without card.

Explanation/considerations: The referee awards a penalty kick for handball, evaluated as occurring outside the penalty area. In this case, the contact between the hand and the ball is such that it warrants punishment because the defender risks remaining on the trajectory of the shot without controlling their body in an attempt to create an obstacle with their own body. The hand increases the surface area of impact and obstruction in an unnatural way. Considering this situation as a punishable offense involving handball is correct.

VAR: The VAR correctly intervenes again to show that the incident occurred inside the penalty area, not outside (as initially assessed by the referee on the field). According to new UEFA recommendations, the correct decision would be a penalty without a yellow card (PNS - pitch-side review).

"Shakhtar" - "Obolon'". Referee - Mykola Balakin.

54 min.

Decision on the field: penalty kick without card.

Correct decision: no foul/no card.

Explanation/considerations: The referee awards a penalty kick for handball, evaluated as occurring outside the penalty area. In this episode too, the defender risks remaining on the trajectory of the shot without controlling their body in an attempt to create an obstacle with their own body. However, in this case, the hand does not increase the surface area of impact because it is fully pressed against the chest (if the ball had hit the right hand instead, it would have been entirely different). Considering this situation involving contact between the hand and the ball as one that does not warrant punishment is correct.

VAR: The referee waits before signaling a foul to check for an advantage. The VAR correctly intervenes, allowing the referee to verify that the ball touched only the left hand (no penalty). The correct decision would be no foul and no card (PNS - pitch-side review).

"LNZ" - "Ruh". Referee - Oleksandr Kalyonov.

90+1 min.

Decision on the field: no foul/goal.

Correct decision: no foul/goal.

Explanation/considerations: The referee correctly decided that neither situation warranted punishment and continued play, which led to a goal. The first episode involves contact between the feet of players vying for the ball, which is normal in football and does not warrant any penalty as neither player demonstrates excessive behavior towards their opponent. Continuing play was correct. As a result of minor contact, both players lost balance and fell. In this case, the attacker touches the ball with an outstretched right hand to support themselves on the grass, but this does not warrant punishment because the ball has practically stopped moving at that moment and cannot be controlled. Therefore, continuing play was correct, leading to a goal. It should be noted that the goal was scored according to the rules by a teammate (No. 9 "LNZ"), and there was no immediate advantage. If No. 9 had immediately scored after touching the ball with his hand, it would have been disallowed due to an immediate advantage.

VAR: In this case, VAR is limited to reviewing video footage since actions are entirely correct throughout the initial phase of attacking play (PFAF - initial phase of attacking action).

"Olexandria" - "Minay". Referee - Oleksandr Shandor.

90+7 min.

Decision on the field: end game

Correct decision: continue play.

Explanation/considerations: The referee allows a corner kick to be taken at 90+7 minutes, and according to the methodological recommendations of the UEFA Referees Committee, play should have continued until the ball was cleared out of the penalty area or the field. In this case, the referee made an error by stopping play when the ball was still inside the penalty area (possibly mistaking it for going over the goal line), and he should have allowed the action to continue.

VAR: Unfortunately, VAR has no right to intervene after the referee has stopped play (out of protocol).