The Arbitration Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association explained the interpretation of game episodes of three matches of the 1st round of the Vbet League-2023/2024.

The main expert on refereeing at the UFA, Nicola Rizzoli, commented on specific episodes of the refereeing in matches of the 1st round of the Vbet League-2023/2024: "Oleksandria" — "Kryvbas", "Veres" — "Polesye" and "Dynamo" — "Minay".

"Oleksandria" — "Kryvbas". Referee — Yaroslav Kozik.

14th minute.

Ruling on the field: no foul/no card.

Correct ruling: penalty without a card.

Explanation/considerations: Player No. 79 (FC "Kryvbas"), who controls the ball, is engaged in a challenge with defender No. 55 (FC "Oleksandria") who clearly trips his opponent to gain possession of the ball (without touching or playing the ball). This constitutes a clear foul that warrants a penalty kick. Unfortunately, the referee is too far away due to a long pass, which makes it difficult for him to properly assess the incident.

VAR: Unfortunately, there was no VAR on this match who would have advised the referee to review the play (PAN) allowing him to watch the video and award a penalty without disciplinary action since the defender attempted to challenge his opponent for the ball (a genuine attempt).

"Veres" — "Polesye". Referee — Igor Pashal.

53rd minute.

Ruling on the field: penalty/yellow card.

Correct ruling: free kick/red card.

Explanation/considerations: Player No. 77 (FC "Veres"), who clearly controls the ball, is heading towards the penalty area in a clear direction toward the opponent's goal. Defender No. 4 (FC "Polesye") attempts to challenge him for the ball and commits a foul by pushing with his right hand almost at the edge of the penalty area. The referee is too far away due to a quick counter-attack, and he consults an assistant before making a decision regarding the possibility of awarding a penalty. This situation is very complex, and at normal speed it appears that everything happens inside the penalty area. VAR intervenes correctly, allowing the referee to review video footage clearly showing that the foul was committed outside the penalty area. Video playback was conducted from two different angles (16-meter camera ("offside") for checking the incident location (inside or outside the penalty area) and main camera to accurately determine the moment of the foul). Since it was initially assessed as occurring inside the penalty area, the disciplinary action with a yellow card was correctly changed to dismissal for DOGSO (denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity).

"Dynamo" — "Minay". Referee — Maxim Koziriatyky.

32nd minute.

Ruling on the field: free kick/red card.

Correct ruling: free kick/red card.

Explanation/considerations: Player No. 4 (FC "Dynamo") commits a foul that clearly endangers the health of his opponent, striking with studs and the top of his foot to the shoulder/chest while jumping, thus having no control over his body to limit this impact. This dynamic was correctly assessed as SFP (serious foul play).

"Review completed" —  VAR appropriately limits itself to reviewing and analyzing video footage from different cameras, confirming the correctness of the decision made.

56th minute.

Ruling on the field: free kick/red card.

Correct ruling: free kick/red card.

Explanation/considerations: Player No. 3 (FC "Minay") commits a standard foul outside his penalty area. Without the foul against player No. 7 (FC "Dynamo"), he would clearly and simply have controlled the ball and had all the chances to score an easy goal. Therefore, the referee correctly interpreted this situation as DOGSO (denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) and dismissed the goalkeeper from FC "Minay".

"Review completed" — VAR appropriately limits itself to reviewing and analyzing video footage from different cameras, confirming the correctness of the decision made.