"There are no criteria for a serious violation of the rules of the game"

The controversial removal of Ilzat Akhmetov in the Spartak - CSKA match made a lot of noise in recent days.

In the 35th minute of the capital derby, the army midfielder, trying to make an interception in the center of the field, flew spikes into the shin of Alexander Sobolev.

At the same time, it is clearly seen on the replay that the violator of the rules first played the ball, and only then, by inertia, hit the opponent's leg.

Referee Pavel Kukuyan recorded a foul, but did not show the player even a yellow card.

And only after a tip from the referee on VAR Sergey Karasev, the young referee went to the monitor.

As a result, he changed his mind and removed Akhmetov.

After the meeting, Ilzat himself admitted that contact with Sobolev had taken place, but stressed that he “played with his cheek in the shield”, and therefore it was not worth applying such serious sanctions to him.

The opinions of experts also differed radically.

For example, the former head coach of the Russian national team Valery Gazzaev considered the referee's decision erroneous, as did the ex-RPL referee Igor Fedotov.

In his opinion, Kukuyan should have limited himself to the mustard plaster.

In turn, journalist Vasily Utkin emphasized that Akhmetov could seriously injure Sobolev, and therefore he should have been removed from the field.

He was supported by the former USSR national team goalkeeper Anzor Kavazashvili, who called the CSKA midfielder a "tough boy" who throws himself into martial arts "like a dog."

The army team did not agree with Kukuyan's decision and filed a complaint with the Expert Judicial Commission under the President of the RFU.

The ESC quite unexpectedly agreed with the club and found the referee's verdict incorrect.

Following the FTC canceled the red card for the player.

“The decision of the ESC is motivated by the fact that Akhmetov's actions lack criteria for a serious violation of the rules of the game - there is no effort, malice, or the use of thorns.

The opponent's foot is touched in the air after a normal ball game, with the inside of the foot, in a casual manner.

This action deserves a warning for reckless behavior, "- said on the official website of the RFU.

At the same time, according to media reports, the decision of the commission was not unanimous.

Moreover, the head of the RFU refereeing department, Viktor Kashshai, spoke directly against the final verdict.

Sergei Zuev, Sergei Fursa, Nikolai Levnikov, Yuri Baskakov, Frank De Bleecker, Wolfgang Stark and Alan Snoddy voted in favor.

It is curious that quite recently Akhmetov received a direct red card for a similar violation of the rules - in the match of the 23rd round of the RPL against Zenit (2: 3).

Then Ilzat also did not have time to intercept in the center of the field and flew with spikes into Daler Kuzyaev's shin.

Moreover, Yevgeny Kukulyak, who is serving the game, did not even register a foul at first, and only after a colleague's advice on VAR and watching the replay removed the player from the field.

But then the decision of the arbitrator was not disputed.

It is all the more surprising that this time Kukuyanu was helped by the best referee of the country, Karasev, and it was he who suggested that a much less experienced colleague go to the monitor, and, accordingly, saw an obvious mistake in his actions.

As a result, ESCO disagreed with both.

But one of the leaders of the judiciary in Russia, on the contrary, supported the subordinates.

VAR as an element of chaos in Russian football

The implementation of the VAR revealed the existence of problems with the interpretation of the rules in football. Previously, the same fans found it very difficult to unequivocally answer the question of why, in this particular situation, the referees made this or that decision. After all, it was extremely difficult for them to assess how good a position he took at the time of the alleged violation, and whether he discerned what happened. Now the referee can consider almost any controversial episode from different angles and make an informed decision, but this did not solve the problem. 

And the reason here is not only that the VAR system assumes its use only in a very limited range of situations, which is not always enough to ensure fair refereeing. So, in the 12th round match Krasnodar - Spartak, referee Vladislav Bezborodov did not count the net goal of the southerners, mistakenly fixing a foul on the part of Alexander Martynovich, but his assistant at VAR Kirill Levnikov, according to the protocol, could not give advice in this situation ... And in the game of the red-and-white against Sochi, Alexey Eskov, according to Vasily Kazartsev, first suggested that he cancel the penalty kick against Spartak, but then said “to continue the game” due to the absence of an “obvious mistake” in his actions.

The main reason is the lack of clear interpretations, in connection with which, in extremely similar moments, the arbitrators often make different decisions. In this regard, the 27th round of the RPL turned out to be indicative. At the end of the match between Dynamo and Khimki, defender Alexander Filin grabbed Nikolay Komlichenko in his own penalty area and did not allow him to strike. But neither the already mentioned Kukulyak, nor his assistant at VAR Sergey Ivanov recorded an obvious foul. Later, the ESC RFU confirmed their mistake.

And in the game "Lokomotiv" - "Rostov" (4: 1) Igor Panin did not recommend Mikhail Vilkov to watch the replay of the controversial episodes, although the ESC subsequently unanimously recognized two decisions of the referee as erroneous: the removal of Armin Gigovich and the appointment of a penalty for Denis Terentyev's foul on Grzegorz Krykhovyak ...

Moreover, the referee from Nizhny Novgorod was removed from refereeing for these blots.

But why did not Panin notice them?

Perhaps the most controversial is the play with the hands.

For example, in the already mentioned meeting between CSKA and Zenit, ESC called the right decision of Kukulyak to appoint a penalty kick to the gates of the army team for hitting the ball in the wrist of Mario Fernandez.

But later, the commission also supported Kirill Levnikov, who did not point out the "point" in the Lokomotiv-Spartak derby in the episode with the ball hitting Pablo's hand.

Finally, ESC considered the episode that took place in the meeting between Rostov and Rotor, when Maksim Osipenko obviously played along with his hand before Gigovich's goal, absolutely clean.

The ESCs are doing absolutely right, explaining all their verdicts on certain controversial issues.

But the leadership of the judiciary must also tell as clearly as possible in the smallest detail how certain rules work.

It is desirable with video frames so that the referee does not have a discussion right during the matches.

Such an educational program can be safely carried out after each meeting of the commission.

Until this is done, the number of referee scandals will continue to multiply. And football fans, seeing no logic in the verdicts of people with whistles, will accuse them of bias.