Time flies—only one round remains in the MIR RPL season! We’ve already witnessed massive drama: Sochi’s relegation, Orenburg’s survival, and of course, Krasnodar’s collapse in Moscow. It’s no secret that as the season’s climax approaches, referees face even greater challenges. How did they handle the pressure and controversial moments this time?
Exclusively for “Championat,” our expert and former RPL referee Igor Fedotov analyzed the officiating in the 29th round of the Russian Championship. Below is his breakdown of all eight matches.
The maximum rating is 8.4. A referee earns this if they complete a match without errors.
The rating drops to 7.9 if the referee makes one key mistake: incorrect awarding or non-awarding of a penalty, showing or not showing a straight red card (to a player or coaching staff member), or showing or not showing a second yellow card (to a player or coaching staff member).
If a second key error occurs, 0.5 points are deducted.
0.1 points are deducted for incorrectly showing or not showing a yellow card (to a player or coaching staff member) or for missing three to five fouls.
1 point is deducted if the VAR referee identified an error by the on-field referee, but the on-field referee upheld their incorrect decision despite reviewing the replay.
The rating in parentheses is the referee’s score if they made one key mistake but otherwise performed well.
If a referee works in a high-difficulty match, the base rating rises to 8.5.
Analysis of refereeing in the previous round:
**Exclusive:** “Spartak’s complaints against Karasev are completely groundless.” Analysis of refereeing in the 28th round of the RPL
**Orenburg vs. Krylya Sovetov – 1:0**
In the 45+3rd minute, Sukhoi incorrectly showed a yellow card to Banyats. There was no foul in that moment; the Orenburg player faked it. In the same attack, Sukhoi correctly did not award a penalty against Orenburg—it was a non-punishable handball.
In the 59th minute, he correctly showed a yellow card to Vityugov. This was a borderline moment for a potential red card, but it was a normal challenge, albeit a bit high. Crucially, it was the referee’s on-field decision, not a VAR intervention.
Sukhoi’s rating: 8.3.
**Zenit vs. Sochi – 2:1**
In the 12th minute, Shafeev correctly awarded a penalty against Sochi. Some people questioned this penalty, but the key point is that Fedorov caught Glushenkov with his hip. Many think Fedorov simply placed his foot parallel and the Zenit player fell on his own, but that’s not true. Fedorov hit Glushenkov’s pace, and there was a foul—clearly visible from the lower camera angle. It was a normal penalty. Shafeev was in the recommended position and controlled the duel.
Shafeev’s rating: 8.4.
Championship comeback? Zenit struggled against Sochi until the 84th minute, when Erokhin decided the match!
**Akhmat vs. Dynamo Makhachkala – 1:1**
In the 34th minute, Ndong didn’t reach the ball and elbowed his opponent in the face, who had already played the ball. Ivanov was in an open position and saw everything. Based on the footage, he intended to call a foul—he even brought the whistle to his mouth. We can’t say this was a clash after playing the ball because there was an elbow and contact. This was a rough play and a 100% reason for VAR intervention (with Levnikov as the VAR referee). Why he didn’t intervene is the question. We need to listen to the communications. Thus, the referees incorrectly did not award a penalty against Akhmat.
In the 47th minute, Ivanov didn’t show a yellow card to Samorodov for rough play, and in the 50th minute, he didn’t show one to Sadulaev. These were clear yellow cards, not invented out of thin air. Such actions must be punished, but unfortunately, Ivanov didn’t.
Ivanov’s rating: 7.7.
**Lokomotiv vs. Baltika – 1:0**
Regarding Andrade’s sending off in the 12th minute—for me, it was a normal yellow card. The Baltika player was close to the opponent, there was no speed or straight leg; the leg was bent. Yes, there was contact on the calf from behind. Yes, studs were involved. But it was the toe, not the entire foot. There was no pressing, and no leg-breaking. There were enough criteria to keep it a yellow. However, this moment is debatable. VAR called Frolov to the monitor, and he changed the yellow card to red.
In the 63rd minute, Frolov incorrectly did not award a penalty against Lokomotiv. The referee was in a good position and should have seen the foul—his entire gaze was focused on the aerial battle and the ball. A Lokomotiv player stuck out his elbow and hit the opponent in the cheekbone, causing the opponent’s head to turn. Frolov only awarded the penalty after VAR intervention.
In the 87th minute, he correctly did not award a penalty against Baltika. The handball in this case was not punishable.
Frolov’s rating: 7.9 (8.4).
It seems the medals are heading to Cherkizovo: Mitryushkin brings Lokomotiv closer to RPL bronze! And Baltika officially fails in spring.
**Akron vs. Rostov – 1:3**
The only moment up for discussion is Rostov’s goal in the 45+3rd minute. It might have seemed that the attacking player was offside. But the freeze-frame clearly shows he was not. Good work by the first assistant Bolotenkov, who confirmed the goal.
Shadykhanov’s rating: 8.4.
**Pari NN vs. CSKA – 1:2**
No questions regarding Prokopov—good work by the young and promising referee.
Prokopov’s rating: 8.4.
But there are plenty of questions for the teams. Match anomaly! Video: CSKA’s comeback in Nizhny in one minute! They were terrible until the 89th minute—then the inexplicable happened.
**Spartak vs. Rubin – 2:1**
The referees correctly awarded Spartak’s goal in the fifth minute. From the goal-line view, it’s clear there was no offside.
In the 27th minute, Marquinhos fell in Rubin’s penalty area. From the dynamic view of the general camera, it was visible that the ball was going away and the Spartak player tripped over it. There was some contact with Staver, but he played the ball, and the fall was mostly due to Marquinhos stumbling. Abrosimov’s position was decent. I think the first assistant Lunyov also played a role. This is his area of responsibility, and he is a brave referee who can make decisions. Good work by the officiating team.
Abrosimov’s rating: 8.4.
**Dynamo Moscow vs. Krasnodar – 2:1**
No questions for Tanashev. Only internal ones related to his positioning on the field. For some reason, he lost his rhythm and drifted to the central line, circling around the players. This wasn’t observed until midway through the second half—Tanashev kept up with attacks and accompanied them. But then something broke. Probably, nerves played a role. Overall, though, it was okay; he held up. Progress is visible compared to his first matches. Tanashev has become more confident, communicates with players, and smiles. Normal on-field refereeing.
After Dynamo’s second goal, Cordoba jumped on the assistant due to an earlier incident with Osipenko. But there’s nothing to discuss there. The Dynamo defender’s hand was supporting his body, and the ball came from his own player. Cordoba kept pointing at the hand for a minute, for which he received a yellow card. Of course, Krasnodar will now blame the referees for everything