The Referees Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association jointly with Match Inspector Nicola Rizzoli explained interpretations of specific game episodes in matches of the 27th round of the Vbet League-2023/2024.

"Metalist 1925" - "Vorskla". Referee — Mykhailo Raida.

77 min.

On-field referee's decision — play on without DSC.

Decision after VAR review — penalty kick without DSC.

The correct decision — play on without DSC.

Rationale: Player No. 95 («Vorskla») touches the ball with his hand after a shot by opponent No. 19 («Metalist 1925»), who is in front of him, and does so very unexpectedly and changes the trajectory of the ball's flight. The hand is positioned close to the body (also bent) and not extended for its enlargement. The on-field referee's decision to play on without penalizing the player for handling the ball was correct.

Unfortunately, in this case, the analysis by the VAR team is incorrect as it focuses solely on the contact between the hand and the ball, not checking how the opponent touched the ball just before that which changed its trajectory and made its flight unexpected for the defender. For this reason, a VAR review was recommended, but since it does not highlight or consider the deflection of the ball's flight by the opponent (No. 19), the final decision of the on-field referee was also incorrect.

"Obolon" - "LNZ". Referee — Dmytro Kubryak.

90+2 min.

On-field referee's decision — play on without DSC.

The correct decision — play on without DSC.

Rationale: Player No. 34 («LNZ») after heading the ball touches it with his outstretched hand. According to the rules, such contact between the ball and the hand is not punishable, so the referee had all reasons not to penalize this contact of the ball with the hand despite its being extended.

That's why the VAR team limited itself to a silent review.

"Polesia" - "Zoria". Referee — Volodymyr Novohatnyi.

36 min.

On-field referee's decision — penalty kick + yellow card.

The correct decision — penalty kick + yellow card.

Rationale: Player No. 5 («Zoria») in an attempt to keep the ball, extends his left hand unnaturally behind him and strikes opponent No. 37 («Polesia») in the face. Such action is considered a foul in an unsporting manner and should be penalized with a yellow card. We remember that the referee must ensure player safety, and rules require special attention to improper use of hands aimed at an opponent's face.

That's why the VAR team had to conduct a silent review (remember that the yellow card is offside protocol, so the VAR cannot intervene even in case of issuing a second yellow card leading to a red).

90+3 min.

On-field referee's decision — penalty kick without DSC.

The correct decision — penalty kick + yellow card.

Rationale: Player No. 31 («Polesia») steps on the foot of opponent No. 47 («Zoria») in an attempt to clear the ball. This late movement (step) is a foul in an unsporting manner, for which the player should receive a warning (second yellow card).

The VAR cannot intervene as this situation involves a yellow card outside of protocol.

"Shakhtar" - "Chornomorets". Referee — Anastasiia Romanuk.

53 min.

On-field referee's decision — penalty kick without DSC.

The correct decision — penalty kick without DSC.

Rationale: Goalkeeper No. 1 («Chornomorets») in an attempt to clear the ball from player No. 14 («Shakhtar») is late and trips the opponent, leading to a clearly visible penalty kick. An unsuccessful attempt to clear the ball leads to a rules violation in the penalty area, so no yellow card for rule violations is issued.

That's why the VAR conducted a silent review.

"Veres" - "Minay". Referee — Ihor Paschal.

67 min.

On-field referee's decision — penalty kick without DSC.

The correct decision — penalty kick + red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGHO).

Rationale: Player No. 4 («Minay») denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGHO) for the opposing team, which should result in a penalty kick and a red card.

In this situation, all four criteria for determining a DOGHO are present: 1) location of the foul; 2) direction of attack towards the goal; 3) number and position of defenders; 4) possession of the ball. The last point has little room for debate as without the handball, the ball would have gone past the defender, remaining under control of player No. 88 or reached his teammate who could easily score.

Given these reasons, the VAR should have recommended a VAR review that would give the on-field referee an opportunity to better assess all four DOGHO criteria.

83 min.

On-field referee's decision — play on without DSC.

Decision after VAR review — penalty kick without DSC.

The correct decision — play on without DSC.

Rationale: Player No. 4 («Minay») competes with opponent No. 99 («Veres») for the ball, jumping to head it away. During the struggle, both players lose their balance and when they fall onto the playing field, their hands naturally rise even if separated in an attempt to regain balance. This is part of natural movements, so contact between hand and ball should not be considered a foul as it is entirely accidental. The referee was correct initially allowing play to continue.

Given the reasons described above, we do not consider VAR review possible in this case. Hand significantly away from body, which prompted the VAR to recommend a VAR review but there are no grounds that would determine ball clearing as intentional action/foul as previously explained. Nonetheless, since we talk about a debatable situation, we do not expect VAR intervention even if the on-field referee awards a penalty kick.