In the match of the 27th round of the Ukrainian championship “Veres” — “Obolon” there were two episodes marked by incomprehensible decisions of referee Kybriak. In the first half, the hosts were left with ten men due to the dismissal of Kutsiy allegedly for simulation, and at the beginning of the second half, for some reason, there was no dismissal of Pryimak. What is wrong with the referee's decisions was explained by referee expert, ex-FIFA referee Miroslav Stupar.
Miroslav Stupar— Let's start with the fact that the referee should not be a formalist on the field, — Miroslav Ivanovych takes the floor. — He must approach the match creatively and not be the number one figure among the executors of the action. The figures are the football players. Kybriak created problems for himself during the match.
The first and incorrect decision at the 34th minute — dismissal, the second yellow card seemingly for simulation to the player of “Veres” Kutsiy. But at this moment, Kutsiy processed the ball before the penalty area and took off after it, while Chernenko, not managing to play, stuck his thigh in the way of the opponent. There was contact between the players, and this is obvious. The referee did not understand, decided that Kutsiy was simulating, showed him a second warning. It’s a pity that VAR cannot intervene in such episodes. And this is a flaw in the system when it is necessary to urgently correct the referee’s mistake. If the protocol had a provision for a review, then, probably, Kybriak would have reviewed his decision, and the teams would have played with equal compositions. Instead of dismissal, a penalty kick would have been awarded against “Obolon”’s goal.
At the beginning of the second half, at the 46th minute, Kybriak made another gross mistake when he did not dismiss “Obolon” player Pryimak — for obvious denial of an opponent’s goal-scoring opportunity. Stepaniuk was thrown the ball in front of the goal, he could go one-on-one with the goalkeeper, but Pryimak, according to the referee’s thought, pushed the attacker in the body. The referee fixed the violation and… showed only a yellow card to the violator. Here, VAR intervened, recommending a review of the decision for a red card. The referee looked but surprisingly kept the initial decision valid. What he was guided by is unknown.
The referee expert elaborated on his opinion regarding the non-dismissal of the Obolon player:
— Although all criteria fall under a red card. The first — the distance and direction of the attacking player. The second — the control of the ball by the player. The third — the positioning of the defenders, whether they can impede and intervene in the episode. As we can see, the defenders were aside and could not obstruct the attacker’s advance. Therefore — this is a dismissal.
Summarizing, the expert said:
— After such an ambiguous decision, the game became nervous, conflicts began between players, and the referee found it difficult to manage the game. And if we recall that the referee in the first minutes did not show a warning to “Veres” player Klyots for a dangerous tackle from behind against Vitenchuk, then the problem of the referee in imposing disciplinary sanctions becomes evident. Everything is the opposite, where it is not necessary to send off — he sent off, where it is necessary to send off, instead of a red — a yellow card.
