To your respects, clarification of all the controversial moments of the past matches in the Ukrainian Championship.

The UAF Referees Committee, together with arbitration consultant Nicola Rizzola, explained the controversial moments in the game episodes of matches in the last two rounds of the Ukrainian Premier League.

Round 20 Chornomorets - Vorskla. Referee - Dmitro Evtukhov. WAA referee - Oleksandr Omelchenko. 13th.

Border situation. The attacker significantly increases the contact, hoping to earn a simple penalty. The main criterion for evaluating this type is who makes the contact.

The correct answer is that there is a defender who, trying to reach the ball, will trip up his opponent, and then a penalty should be awarded..

As the answer is an attacker who loses his leg, to find out or make contact with the attacker, then after punishment for simulation.

From this point of view, the reasons for the referee's decision on the field are reasonable - it gives precedence to another aspect.

We guess, in order to draw the dead card, the simulation is to blame for being obvious. VAA is subject to a thorough check, without any further evidence that the contact was made exclusively by the official.

Metalist 1925 – LNZ. Referee: Sergiy Zadiran. WAA referee - Yaroslav Kozik. 33 hv.

The referee, being in a miracle position, evaluates the defender’s actions as a fall, and the position of his hands as one that corresponds to hands (running).

Evaluation criteria:.

- hands in natural position;

- hand pressed to the body;

— the ball collapses to the hand;

- stand up close;

— the trajectory of the ball is not clear.

The referee's decision to continue the game correctly.

83 hv.

The referee assessed the contact between the hand and the ball as a fall, and the hand as one that was in its natural position. If you re-read the evaluation criteria, then judging by the severity of the damage, the contact between the hand and the ball is 11-meter kick, which was crushed after the correct delivery of the BAA.

Zorya - Minai. Referee: Dmytro Bondarenko. WAA referee - Oleksandr Shandor. 51 xv.

The referee, regardless of the miracle position and control of the situation, assesses the graver’s actions as a serious game disruption. This situation has daily criteria for assessing the episode as a disruption caused by overwhelming force, both in terms of intensity and in terms of the place of contact.

The BAA arbitrator, having assessed the video, which was clearly evident, is correctly presented and first shows the typology of the damage (not the SIP, and therefore not a red card), and then shows the hidden picture and dynamics, which means that the damage is not the same. The defender watches important games.

Polissia – Oleksandria. Arbitrator - Yuriy Ivanov. WAA referee - Denis Shurman. 60 hv.

The referee’s gaze, regardless of his miraculous position, is blocked by a number of graves, and, perhaps, he is unable to properly handle the situation. Zahisnik (No. 25 Oleksandriya) really doesn’t miss the need for destruction - you can simply run away from the attacker, who loses equal ground after normal game contact. In reality, this contact does not have the nature of damage (in addition, the attacker’s leg is in front of the attacker’s leg).

The correct decision is not to award a penalty kick.

For the BAA arbitrator, this is a difficult decision, and he is surrounded by a voluntary re-verification, without any further evidence that the arbitrator did not commit any damage.

Veres — Dynamo. Referee - Dmitro Panchishin. BAA referee - Vitaly Romanov. 90+3 hv.

The referee, regardless of the miraculous position and control of the situation, assesses the disruption of the attacker’s actions, who, incidentally, is ahead of the defender in a correctly executed tackle, who, when trying to knock the ball, clearly misses the blow to his opponent in the leg.

From the camera behind the goal you can clearly see that the attacker is clearly ahead of his opponent, and there is absolutely no damage; And after that, as the attacker has grabbed, the defender orders a kick at the foot.

The BAA arbitrator, having read the dynamics of the situation and having looked at all the video material from different angles, looked at what was obvious, correctly recommends that the court re-watch the episode on the field, after which it is correctly assigned 11- meter blow.

21st round Metalist 1925 - Rukh. Referee - Klim Zabroda. BAA referee - Mikola Balakin. 48 hv.

Gravets No. 93 The roc with its spikes makes strong unfair contact with the head of the opponent (goalkeeper), which clearly threatens the opponent’s safety. The arbitrator cannot determine the seriousness of the violation and is therefore ahead of the offender. The WAA referee correctly recommends a review of the episode on the field, after which the referee correctly rules out the foul for a flagrant foul.

87 hv.

The referee, regardless of the miraculous position and control of the situation, mercifully awards an 11-meter kick as a handball.

Arbitr Vaa, looking at Videomaterіal Iz Riznikh Kutyv with an eye (contact of m’yachauu, with a tulub Zakhisnik, and not with a hand), correctly recommended a reservoir of the epіzoda at half, Pirogli Zaboviti Golb..

LNZ - \u200b\u200bDnipro-1. Referee: Oleksandr Afanasyev. BAA referee - Viktor Kopievsky. 47 hv.

The referee assessed the contact between the hand and the ball as a fall, and the hand as one that was in its natural position. If you re-read the evaluation criteria, then you should punish the contact between the hand and the ball with a free kick.

Evaluation criteria:.

- the ball can fly from afar and completely;

- the hand is spread wide, and it flows into the path of the ball;

- the hand collapses to the ball, which allows the attacker to control it and capture it.

The WAA referee is responsible for recommending a review of the episode on the field, in case the attacking actions were disappointed that the attacker caught the ball after playing with his hand, which means PFAD (early phase of attacking actions).

Obolon — Polissia. Referee: Denis Shurman. WAA referee - Roman Blavatsky. 2 hv.

The referee correctly assessed the duel between the defender and the attacker as a foul. He also correctly assessed the dynamics as ZOGM (in view of the obvious powerlessness) and showed the red card.

Evaluation criteria:.

- says directly;

- stand up in front of the place where there has been destruction;

- a number of defenders who were able to get involved in the actions of the attacker, who would go straight to the gate;

- throw the ball from the attacker's side.

All the criteria for ZOGM are obvious, so the decision is correct. The BAA arbitrator will undergo a cross-check.

89 xv.

The arbitrator, being in a miraculous position, evaluates the defender’s actions as lawful. The attacker significantly increases the contact, hoping to earn a penalty. For these reasons, the referee's decision on the field is reasonable. The BAA arbitrator will undergo a cross-check.

Previous Football. ua let's know about the availability, which includes the remaining gaming day before the gathering.