The Referees Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association jointly with consultant Nicola Rizzoli explained interpretations of specific game episodes in matches of the 20th and 21st rounds Vbet League-2023/2024.

Round 20

"Chornomorets" — "Vorskla". Referee — Dmitro Yevtukhov. VAR — Oleksandr Omelchenko.

13 min.

Borderline situation. The attacker significantly intensifies the contact, trying to earn a simple penalty. The main criterion in this case is who initiates the contact.

A more accurate answer would be that the defender, while attempting to reach the ball, makes a trip on an opponent and then a penalty should be awarded here.

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

For that reason, the referee's decision on the field is understandable — he gives preference to the second possibility.

We remind you that a yellow card must be shown for clear and obvious simulation.

VAR remains silent due to lack of full evidence that the contact was initiated exclusively by the defender.

"Metalist 1925" — "LNZ". Referee — Serhii Zadiran. VAR — Yaroslav Kozik.

33 min.

The referee, in an excellent position, evaluates the defender's actions as accidental and his hands as being in a natural position relative to movement (running).

Evaluation criteria:

— hands in a natural position;

— hand pressed against the body;

— ball moving towards the hand;

— close distance;

— unexpected trajectory of the ball.

The referee's decision to continue play is correct.

83 min.

The referee assessed the contact between hand and ball as accidental, considering the hand in a natural position. However, if we re-evaluate the criteria for assessment, then the referee should have stopped play and penalized the contact with an 11-meter penalty kick, which was correctly awarded after VAR's proper intervention.

"Zoria" — "Minay". Referee — Dmitro Bondarenko. VAR — Oleksandr Shandor.

51 min.

The referee, despite an excellent position and control of the situation, evaluates the player's actions as a serious foul. In this situation, there are no criteria for assessing the episode as a foul committed with excessive force, neither in terms of intensity nor location of contact.

VAR, after reviewing the video available to him, correctly intervenes and first shows the type of foul (this is not an SIF, so it's not a red card), then demonstrates the overall picture and dynamics because this foul disrupts important game actions (interrupting a promising attack).

"Polesia" — "Oleksandria". Referee — Yuriy Ivanov. VAR — Denis Shurman.

60 min.

The referee's review, despite his excellent position, covers several players and possibly fails to see the situation properly. The defender (No. 25 "Oleksandria") does not commit any foul — he simply runs alongside an attacker who loses balance after a normal game contact. In reality, this contact does not have the character of a foul (except that the defender's foot is ahead of the attacker's).

The correct decision — no penalty kick.

For VAR, this is a difficult decision and he remains silent due to lack of full evidence that the defender did not commit a foul.

"Veres" — "Dynamo". Referee — Dmitro Panchishin. VAR — Vitaliy Romanov.

90+3 min.

The referee, despite an excellent position and control of the situation, evaluates as a foul the actions of the attacker who, on the contrary, leads in a properly executed tackle by the defender, who clearly kicks the opponent's leg while trying to clear the ball.

From the goal camera, it is clearly visible that the attacker clearly leads the opponent, and these actions are absolutely not fouls; and after the attacker plays the ball, the defender kicks him in the foot.

VAR, after reading the dynamics of the situation and reviewing all available video material from different angles, correctly recommends to the referee a review on the field, after which an 11-meter penalty kick is correctly awarded.

Round 21

"Metalist 1925" — "Ruh". Referee — Klim Zabrod. VAR — Mykola Balakin.

48 min.

Player No. 93 "Ruh" makes a strong and unsporting contact with the head of an opponent (goalkeeper) using his cleats, clearly endangering the safety of the opponent. The referee cannot determine the seriousness of the foul and only warns the offender. VAR correctly recommends reviewing the incident on the field, after which the referee correctly dismisses the offender for a serious foul.

87 min.

The referee, despite an excellent position and control of the situation, incorrectly awards an 11-meter penalty kick for handball.

VAR, after reviewing video material from different angles (the ball contacted the defender's body rather than his hand), correctly recommends that the referee review the incident on the field, after which a goal is correctly annulled.

"LNZ" — "Dnipro-1". Referee — Oleksandr Afanasiev. VAR — Viktor Kopiyevskyi.

47 min.

The referee assessed the contact between hand and ball as accidental, considering the hand in a natural position. However, if we re-evaluate the criteria for assessment, then he should have stopped play and penalized the contact with an 11-meter penalty kick.

Evaluation criteria:

— ball travels from a distance slowly;

— hand is widely extended and influences the trajectory of the ball;

— hand moves towards the ball, allowing an attacker to control it.

VAR should have recommended a review on the field considering that attacking actions began when the attacker gained possession of the ball after playing with his hand, which is an initial phase of attacking play (IPAP).

"Obolon"  —  "Polesia". Referee — Denis Shurman. VAR — Roman Blavatskyi.

2 min.

The referee correctly assessed the defender's challenge on an attacker as a foul. He also correctly assessed the dynamics as a clear goal-scoring opportunity (CGSO) and showed a red card.

Evaluation criteria:

— direction towards the goal;

— distance from where the foul was committed;

— number of defenders who could have intervened in the attacker's actions heading toward the goal;

— possession of the ball by the attacker.

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

VAR remains silent.

89 min.

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

VAR remains silent.