The Russian Football Union (RFU) is reviewing the actions of referee Roman Galimov following a Russian Premier League clash between Pari Nizhny Novgorod and Krylya Sovetov Samara, according to RB Sport. The game concluded with Pari NN edging the visitors 2-1 in the 24th round of the season.
Prior to the final whistle, the RFU Expert Referee Commission acknowledged three key decisions that appeared to favor the winning side. In the 34th minute, a penalty was awarded to Samara, prompting questions about the call. Then, in the 42nd minute, Pari NN did not receive a penalty after a potential foul inside the area against them. Later, in the 70th minute, Pari NN saw a player dismissed after a second yellow card, a moment that sparked further debate about the match’s officiating.
The aftermath included a political undertone from Krylya Sovetov, with the club signaling possible legal steps and the club’s chief executive officer resigning in protest. The ongoing review by the RFU centers on whether Galimov’s judgments affected the match outcome and the broader integrity of officiating in the league.
RB Sport indicates that the RFU is continuing its inquiry into the officiating performance, and there has been consideration of a polygraph examination for Galimov. As of now, the results of any such assessment have not been released publicly.
Should Galimov demonstrate the ability to continue refereeing at the top level, he could be reinstated to match assignments. Conversely, if the findings highlight significant errors without adequate justification, there could be formal disciplinary actions or other measures under RFU oversight.
In a related, historical note, the RFU’s Emergency Standards Commission had previously supported a contentious decision in the 89th minute of a different match between Spartak Moscow and CSKA Moscow during the 28th round of the season, where a spot-kick was awarded by referee Sergei Karasev. This previous instance is cited to illustrate the ongoing scrutiny and variance in refereeing decisions within the league’s high-stakes matches.
Industry watchers stress that officiating reviews like this are part of a broader effort to preserve consistency across Russia’s top flight. The aim is to ensure referees adhere to standardized interpretations of fouls, penalties, and discipline, while also maintaining transparency for fans, teams, and broadcasters across North America and beyond.
Analysts note that decisions in tight league games often become focal points for discussions about officiating quality, game control, and the impact on team performance and league standings. The RFU’s handling of Galimov’s case is watched closely by clubs, players, and supporters who rely on fair play and predictable officiating as part of a competitive ecosystem that includes international attention from North American audiences.
As the inquiry progresses, observers in Canada and the United States will be watching for official clarifications, potential policy updates for refereeing protocols, and any announced timelines for decisions. The outcome may influence how future disputes are communicated to the public and how refereeing reviews are integrated into season-long governance.