The Referees Committee of the Ukrainian Football Association, together with arbitration consultant Nicola Rizzoli, clarified the interpretation of specific match episodes from the 11th round of the Ukrainian championship for the 2025/2026 season. In particular, the expert commented on the goal by Dynamo midfielder Vitalii Buyalskyi, as well as the controversial episode with the unawarded penalty against Shakhtar.
Yukhym Konoplya and Shola Ogundana. Photo: fcdynamo.comRegarding Buyalskyi’s goal:
«The influence is limited only to the goalkeeper’s field of vision. The attacker (Yarmolenko) is unable to move towards the ball and does not actively participate in the play since the shot is made from a very close range. The assessment of the episode focuses solely on whether the attacker’s position obstructs the goalkeeper’s view of the ball. Important criteria are: whether the goalkeeper has a visual contact with the ball at the moment of the shot and whether the attacker obstructs the trajectory of the ball.
In this episode, it is obvious that the Dynamo attacker (Yarmolenko) does not break the rules. He does not move towards the ball, nor does he attempt to play it. The goalkeeper has full visibility of the shot and the flight of the ball. Therefore, the decision of the referee and assistant referee to award the goal is correct.»
Regarding the unawarded penalty against Shakhtar:
«The dynamics of the collision are clearly visible in the video, although on the field it might have seemed like a regular hard collision between two players fighting for the ball. The video recording shows the real sequence of actions: the Dynamo attacker (No. 16) clearly controls the ball and continues to move, kicking it with his foot. At this point, the Shakhtar defender (No. 26), who is late in his action, tries to play the ball with his right foot but instead hits the leg and back of the attacker. This leads to his fall.
This action cannot be considered a normal football collision. The directions of movement of the players are different, the collision happens at high speed and intensity. It cannot be considered a shoulder-to-shoulder battle. Therefore: the referee should have awarded a penalty. The video assistant referee, after reviewing the material, should have recommended a review on the field for a possible penalty award, allowing the referee to fully assess the nature of the contact. This foul should be considered reckless.»
