The Committee of Referees of the Ukrainian Football Association, together with arbitration consultant Nicola Rizzoli, explained the interpretation of certain game episodes of the matches of the 27th round of the Ukrainian Championship.
"Metalist 1925 vs Vorskla. The referee is Mykhailo Raida.
77 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is to continue the game without a penalty.
Thedecision after the PFP is a penalty without a DS.
Thecorrect decision is to continue the game without the DS.
Reasoning: 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 at the same time changes the trajectory of the ball. The arm is close to the body (also bent) and is not extended to make it bigger. The field umpire's decision to continue play and not penalise the player for the arm play was correct.
Unfortunately, in this case, the VAA analysis is incorrect because it only focuses on the contact of the hand with the ball, without checking how the opponent touched the ball shortly before, which changed the trajectory and made it fly unexpectedly for the opponent. For this reason, a PAP was recommended, which does not emphasise or consider the deviation of the ball from the opponent (No. 19), so the final decision of the field referee was also incorrect.
"Obolon vs LNZ. Referee: Dmytro Kubryak.
90+2 mins.
Thedecision of the field ref eree was to continue the game without the DS.
Thecorrect decision is to continue the game without the DS.
Rationale: player No. 34 (LNZ), after kicking the ball with his head, hits himself in the arm, which is in an extended position. In this case, according to the rules of the game, such contact between the ball and the arm is not penalised, so the referee had every reason not to penalise this contact between the ball and the arm, despite the fact that it was extended.
That is why the BAA limited itself to a silent check.
"Polissia vs Zorya. Referee: Volodymyr Novokhatnyi.
36 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is a free kick + yellow card.
Thecorrect decision was a free kick + yellow card.
Reasoning: Player No. 5 (Zorya), trying to keep the ball, puts his left arm out and unnaturally moves it behind his shoulders, striking the face of opponent No. 37 (Polissia). This action is regarded as a reckless foul and should be punished with a yellow card. We remember that the referee must take care of the safety of the players, and the rules require that special attention be paid to the misuse of the arms when they are pointed at the opponent's face.
That is why the VAA had to make a silent check (remember that a yellow card is outside the protocol, so the VAA cannot intervene even if a second yellow card is issued, followed by a red card).
90+3 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is a free kick without DS.
Thecorrect decision is a free kick + yellow card.
Reasoning: Player No. 31 (Polissia) steps on the foot of opponent No. 47 (Zorya) in an attempt to clear the ball. This late movement (attack) is a reckless foul for which the player must receive a warning (the second of the match).
The BAA cannot intervene as this is a yellow card situation that is not covered by the protocol.
"Shakhtar vs Chornomorets. Referee: Anastasiia Romanyuk.
53 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is a penalty without DS.
Thecorrect decision is a penalty without DS.
Reasoning: Goalkeeper No. 1 (Chornomorets), trying to knock the ball away from player No. 14 (Shakhtar), is late and knocks down the opponent, which leads to an obvious penalty. An unsuccessful attempt to clear the ball leads to a foul in the penalty area, so in such cases a yellow card is not issued for a foul.
That's why the BAA made a silent check.
"Veres vs Minaj. Referee: Ihor Paskhal.
67 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is a free kick without a DS.
Thecorrect decision was a free kick + a red card for Foul Play (disruption of an obvious scoring opportunity).
Huddle Up: Player No. 4 (Minaj) thwarts an obvious scoring opportunity for the opposing team, which should have resulted in a free kick for handball and a red card.
In fact, in this situation, all four criteria for determining an OGM situation are present: 1) the place of the offence; 2) the direction of the attack towards the goal; 3) the number and position of the defenders; 4) possession of the ball. The last point has little room for discussion, as without the handball, the ball would have passed the defender and remained under the control of player #88, or would have fallen to his teammate, who could easily have shot on goal.
For the above reasons, the VAA should have recommended a PK, which would have given the referee a better view of the situation and allowed him to assess all four criteria of the VAR.
83 mins.
Thedecision of the field referee is to continue the game without the DS.
Thedecision after the PK is a penalty without DS.
Thecorrect decision is to continue the game without DS.
Rationale: Player No. 4 (Minaj) is fighting with opponent No. 99 (Veres) for the ball, jumping up to knock the ball out with his head. During the tackle, the players lose their balance, so when they fall to the playing field, their arms inevitably come up, even though they are disjointed, in an attempt to regain their balance. This is part of the natural movements, so contact between the hand and the ball should not be considered an infringement as it is completely accidental. The referee initially did the right thing by allowing play to continue.
For the reasons described above, we do not consider the possibility of a PAP in this case. The arm is significantly away from the body and this has prompted the BAA to recommend a PI, but there is no basis to determine the decision to kick the ball as an intentional act/offence as explained earlier. Nevertheless, as we are talking about a controversial situation, we do not expect the BAA to intervene even if the field referee awards a penalty.
