The Referees Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association jointly with consultant Nicola Rizzoli explained interpretations of specific game episodes in matches of the 24th round Vbet League-2023/2024.

Round 24

"Obolon"—"Myna". Referee — Maxim Koziriatytskyi. VAR — Andriy Kovalev.

9 min.

The second assistant referee incorrectly signaled offside for the attacker No. 9 of "Myna" (in such situations, we must remember that when refereeing with VAR support, it is necessary to delay signaling until active attacking actions are completed). The referee correctly decides to wait and see the result of a dangerous attack (and thus give an opportunity for VAR intervention/correction) and penalizes the goalkeeper for a clear foul. The first decision on the field — free kick, because (according to the assistant's statement) the attacker is in offside position.

VAR correctly checks and intervenes in this situation, which is determined by the factual decision (no need for a pitch-side review), as the referee made his decision on the field (in the absence of "offside") — penalty kick/red card for SOGHM.

52 min.

Player No. 4 ("Obolon"), attempting to play the ball with his head, uses his hand (elbow) and hits an opponent in the face. This action is clearly dangerous (reckless), and should be penalized as a foul (within the penalty area — penalty kick) and yellow card (such an action is not considered an attempt to play the ball and therefore requires punishment).

VAR correctly intervened and recommended a pitch-side review for this reason, after which the referee correctly awarded a penalty.

56 min.

The goalkeeper, after the referee allowed the penalty kick to be taken and before the attacker (taker) touched the ball, moves forward without placing at least one foot (or its projection) on the goal line. By blocking the shot from the penalty spot, the goalkeeper commits an infringement, preventing a goal. Since this is the first infringement by the goalkeeper, the penalty kick will be retaken without showing him a yellow card (which would be shown for subsequent infringements). It should be noted that the referee correctly consulted with the goalkeeper before taking the penalty, reminding him of the importance of not moving forward until the shot is taken.

VAR correctly reviewed the factual actions of the goalkeeper and recommended, based on clear video evidence, to retake this penalty kick.

"Oleksandria"—"Dynamo". Referee — Oleksiy Derevynskyi. VAR — Ihor Paskhal.

45 min.

Player No. 9 ("Dynamo"), attempting to play the ball with his head, uses his hand (elbow) and strikes an opponent in the face. This action is clearly dangerous (reckless), and should be penalized as a foul and yellow card.

VAR makes a silent review because such situations do not involve a red card (there is no excessive force in the actions of the attacker).

64 min.

Player No. 4 ("Oleksandria") loses control over the ball through an unsuccessful back pass (attempted with the right foot) and stumbles, at this moment attacker No. 6 ("Dynamo") competes fairly without committing a foul. It should be noted that the referee fully controls the situation and is at optimal distance. Technically, it must be considered that the player's foot (No. 6) has already taken position in front of his opponent (the entire sole is on the ground), and No. 4 touches the "Dynamo" player behind the shin pad. For these reasons, a foul was correctly not signaled.

Given the above reasons, we do not expect VAR intervention in this case. This action (although it may have minor points of discussion), undoubtedly cannot be considered an error, and after pitch-side review, the referee correctly maintained his initial decision made on the field.

"Vorskla"—"Shakhtar". Referee — Oleksandr Omelchenko. VAR — Denis Shurman.

56 min.

Player No. 11 ("Shakhtar") does not account for the goalkeeper's exit from the goal and, attempting to play a challenge, fails to withdraw his leg, which hits the goalkeeper in the face. The speed at which the attacker approaches the goal makes this dynamic of confrontation dangerous for the opponent. We must remember that one of the main goals of the rules of the game, and thus also of the referee, is precisely to protect players and, in particular, goalkeepers in their own penalty area when they are on the ground trying to defend their goal. For this reason, a red card should be considered correct.

This visual dynamic (slow motion) may reduce the intensity of contact because there is no speed at which the attacker approaches the goalkeeper. At the same time, it can be seen how the player attempts to withdraw his leg to avoid an inevitable contact. For this reason, we can evaluate this intervention as marginal (on the monitor screen) and do not expect VAR intervention either for a red card or for a yellow card.