The Arbitration Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association explained interpretations of specific game episodes in matches of the 13th and 14th rounds of the Vbet League-2023/2024.

13rd Round

"Metalist 1925" — "Chornomorets". Referee — Oleksandr Shandor.

9 min.

Player No. 70 of FC "Chornomorets" falls in the penalty area due to game dynamics without any foul, but the referee incorrectly interprets this as simulation and applies a yellow card sanction against the mentioned player.

The decision is incorrect, but it cannot be corrected by VAR because, according to the VAR protocol, this technology does not have the ability to intervene in decisions involving yellow cards.

40 min.

Player No. 70 of FC "Chornomorets" commits a violation that warrants technical sanctions in the form of a penalty kick and a warning in the form of a yellow card. Since this is the second card for this player in this match, the referee issues him a red card.

The decision is correct, but the first warning was incorrect and led to an improper dismissal. The Referees Committee of the UFA sent a letter to the referee emphasizing the above and temporarily suspended him from officiating matches.

14th Round

"Chornomorets" — "Ruh". Referee — Andriy Kovalenko.

69 min.

Player No. 5 of FC "Chornomorets" commits a violation inside the penalty area by deliberately playing with his hand and also obstructing a goal-scoring opportunity. According to the Laws of the Game, such an infringement warrants technical sanctions in the form of a penalty kick and disciplinary sanctions under the category of Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), and thus the referee dismisses this player by showing him a red card.

According to the VAR protocol, such a decision requires verification from this technology. The review was conducted, and both technical and disciplinary sanctions were confirmed by VAR. Therefore, it is a correct decision made by the referee.

"Kryvbas" — "Dynamo". Referee — Maxim Koziriatykyi.

12 min.

Player No. 11 of FC "Dynamo" starts a counterattack and controls the ball, heading towards the opponent's goal, pursued by two players from FC "Kryvbas". Player No. 13 of FC "Kryvbas" makes contact with player No. 11 of FC "Dynamo" from behind, causing him to fall and lose control of the ball, thereby depriving him of a clear scoring opportunity.

Such an infringement falls under the category of Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), thus resulting in technical sanctions in the form of a penalty kick (the violation was committed outside the penalty area) and disciplinary sanctions for DOGSO, i.e., a red card.

According to the VAR protocol, this decision was reviewed by this technology, and both technical and disciplinary sanctions were confirmed. Therefore, it is a correct decision made by the referee.

"Obolon" — "Vorskla". Referee — Kristina Kozorog.

63 min.

During a counterattack, a player from FC "Obolon", who had possession of the ball and was in an advantageous position for scoring a goal, experiences contact from behind by a defender from FC "Vorskla".

This contact causes the player to lose balance and fall onto the pitch. The match referee incorrectly interprets this contact as accidental and mistakenly continues play without applying any sanctions (penalty kick and red card).

According to the VAR protocol, this technology should conduct a review for possible red cards, thus VAR should have intervened to request the referee to perform an on-field review, resulting in a decision regarding technical-disciplinary sanctions as mentioned above.

The CA UFA adopted a resolution to inform those responsible for such errors about the application of appropriate measures against them.

"Polesye" — "Metalist 1925". Referee — Yaroslav Kozik.

81 min.

Player No. 3 of FC "Metalist 1925", without any intention to play the ball, shoves player No. 23 of FC "Polesye" in the back with both hands, causing him to fall out of bounds.

This constitutes deliberate actions that were performed with the hands and should not have been used for contesting the ball (Law 12). Therefore, these actions are unnecessary and warrant technical sanctions in the form of a penalty kick (a penalty if it occurred inside the penalty area).

The referee's decision is correct. Regarding this, VAR also conducted a review according to the relevant protocol and confirmed its correctness.