Round 3

• FK Željezničar vs. FK Rudar Prijedor
  • In the 34', after a penalty was awarded to the visiting team for a foul on player no. 11, a justified VAR intervention (OFR) followed. Upon reviewing the footage, the referee determined there was no foul and overturned the previously awarded penalty and the yellow card given to the home player.
  • In the 63', after correctly applying advantage, the play continued down the wing, ending with a late challenge by home defender no. 33 inside his own penalty area. VAR intervention was absent in this case, although the referee could have reviewed the situation and corrected his decision, as the challenge was excessive and should’ve resulted in a penalty.

Round 4

• FK Rudar Prijedor vs. FK Radnik
  • In the 14', home player no. 11 initiated contact and fell during a duel with an opponent, leading the referee to wrongly award a penalty to the home team. After a justified VAR intervention and OFR review, the referee reversed the decision, correctly giving an indirect free kick to the visiting team and cautioning player no. 11 for unsporting behavior (simulation). We believe the referee should’ve made the correct call without VAR assistance.
  • In the 39', following a quick attack, home player no. 47 committed a foul on visiting forward no. 11. Initially, the referee called handball against the home team. After a justified VAR intervention and OFR review, the referee changed the decision and sent off player no. 47 for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). Although well positioned, the referee couldn’t immediately make the correct call due to the speed of play and location of the contact; a correct and justified VAR intervention.
• FK Velež vs. FK Željezničar
  • In the 6', although the referee was in a good position, he couldn’t see the foul: a stamp inside the penalty area by defender no. 33, due to other defenders obstructing his view. After a correct VAR intervention and OFR review, the referee changed the decision and correctly awarded a penalty to the home team.
  • In the 27', after a correctly awarded foul and a quick reaction by the visiting team during the restart, the referee made a hasty decision without consulting the rest of the officiating team. He misjudged a situation involving denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) as a promising attack (SPA), resulting in an error. After a justified VAR intervention and OFR review, the decision was corrected and player no. 8 was rightly sent off with a red card for DOGSO.