Did the ball cross the line for Trabzonspor's goal? The Trio team evaluated the controversial positions in the match

The 'Trio' team analyzed the controversial incidents of the Galatasaray-Trabzonspor derby. The former referees made clear statements regarding the incidents that left their mark on the night. Here are the details...

Is the yellow card decision for the foul Serdar Saatçı committed against Mertens correct?

Bahattin Duran: Let's look carefully at the referee as he shows the yellow card. After showing the yellow card to Serdar, the referee points with his hand, saying 'you did it there, I warned you.' We talked about awareness. This is very good; in refereeing, there are special warnings and general warnings, and a yellow card fits perfectly. The yellow card you show must also be justified. It is not a yellow-card foul. I don't think it fits.

Deniz Çoban: Is there a foul here! If you look for a foul, you will have a hard time finding one. Even if a player has received a warning anywhere on the pitch or has committed 4 fouls, if the referee evaluates this as a foul, it cannot be categorized as anything else. In no way is this a yellow card. Even if it were his 5th foul, it wouldn't warrant a yellow card.

Bülent Yıldırım: This is not a yellow card. A foul is sufficient.

Is the yellow card decision for Ozan Tufan's intervention on Yunus Akgün in the 21st minute correct?

Bahattin Duran: Galatasaray is going to take a throw-in. Let's see if the location of the throw-in is correct. After that, it's not just one thing. Lundstram fouled Jelert earlier. This action is a clear yellow card. The action Ozan took afterwards is also a clear yellow card. Let's discuss whether it could be more. Ozan made a risky move. He has no intention of playing the ball; the ball is gone, and his only goal is to bring down his opponent. Is Ozan's action injurious while doing this? It is a risky move. He brings his foot to the upper part of the Achilles tendon, to the calf area. A referee saw this photo and sent Ozan off. I wouldn't object. Why did I say yellow card? Despite all the risks, he did not transfer power. First of all, is the location of the throw-in correct? The ball went out for a throw-in 1 meter to the left of the technical area. He threw it from about 4 meters ahead. The referee should have noticed this and warned the player to take it from the correct spot.

Deniz Çoban: If it's not very close to the goal, one shouldn't be too meticulous. He should have shown a yellow card to Lundstram before Ozan. Even if he showed it to Ozan, he should have turned and shown it to Lundstram as well. Look at Şenol Hoca and the assistant referee. Şenol Hoca is on the pitch. There is no sensitivity regarding the technical area in Turkey. While there are technical teams that should have been sent off 10-12 times, they weren't. They didn't send Şenol Hoca off; I can't say it's unfair. Except for 1-2 referees, everyone just swallowed it. According to the rules of the game, Şenol Hoca should have been sent off. To be able to call Ozan's action a red card, one must evaluate the whole picture. For it to be a red card, it must be injurious, brutal, ruthless, and the action must contain intensity. When you freeze the photo, it looks like he is stepping on a place he shouldn't, but there is no continuation of the action. In the entirety of the position, there is no room for a red card. Ozan made contact with the most sensitive area with his studs, but there is no intensity. This is a yellow card. A yellow card for Lundstram as well.

Bülent Yıldırım: "The referee could have taken the throw-in back. I won't criticize. The player's intention is to start the game quickly. This is the midfield, not close to the goal. I won't criticize. Lundstram's action on Jelert with his studs has higher intensity than Ozan's action. If it were a full contact, we would discuss the color of the card. It is a clear, indisputable yellow card. Ozan's action is tripping and bringing him down. There is no ruthlessness or brutality. It is a very risky move. The referee could have been mistaken and shown a red card. A yellow card is sufficient."

Is the foul decision for Yunus Akgün's intervention on Cham in the 25th minute sufficient?

Bahattin Duran: "Yunus rested his arm on his opponent's neck area, then continued by rubbing it from a close distance. A yellow card is indisputable. For it to be more, there must be violence. It is not always sought in the facial area, but it is a duel within the game; however, I accept the yellow card because he rubbed his arm. If he had come and hit him with his elbow, I would have said red."

Deniz Çoban: "This is a serious foul play. Serious foul play describes an injurious intervention made against an opponent while competing for the ball. If this is serious foul play, the effect of the move made to the face must be evaluated. If you say he did it while not competing for the ball, you go to red. This issue is controversial. I think it is closer to violent conduct, serious foul play. This is basically a yellow card; whether it is more is up to the referee's interpretation. I also think it is an orange card. If the referee had called a foul and shown a yellow card, there would be no problem. The referee didn't even call a foul."

Bülent Yıldırım: "It is a physical struggle for the ball. An uncontrolled foul. A yellow card should definitely have been given."

Does Banza foul Sara before Galatasaray's first goal, and is the foul decision correct?

Bahattin Duran: The foul decision is wrong. Banza made contact with the ball with the inside of his foot; he has no intervention or foul on his opponent. He does not hit his opponent. He controlled the ball with the inside of his foot and took it, stripped it away. Banza did not make an intervention after stripping the ball. The game should have continued in this position. There is no foul in this position.

Deniz Çoban: Could Banza have had an intervention on Sara with his shin? It's possible. Hitting is one thing, contact is another. Football is a contact sport. There will inevitably be contact while trying to win the ball. Banza pulls the ball so cleanly that there will inevitably be some contact. There is no foul here.

Bülent Yıldırım: The foul decision is wrong. Referee's bad luck. He saw Banza's action as tripping and was mistaken.

Did the ball go out of play in the second goal Trabzonspor found with Ozan Tufan?

Deniz Çoban: "Goal-line technology cannot solve this; it can only evaluate the area between the goalposts. It cannot measure the goal line. This is an urban legend. To be 100% sure whether this ball crossed the line or not, one must look only and only from the camera at the level of the goalpost. All others are misleading. In goal-line technology, we say 'oh, a goal,' but it hasn't crossed by a centimeter. The feeling that it might have crossed the line arises, but we cannot be 100% convinced. This position, with its sins and merits, is in the conscience of the assistant referee. The assistant referee is watching this position from a very correct place. 'The last person to be discussed regarding this position is VAR. Why? VAR intervenes in this and similar positions only if it is very clear, if it has gone out by 15-20 cm, and if it is 100% certain that it has gone out. VAR cannot intervene in this position. In a position where you look and say it's out, the projection of the ball might have touched the line even by 1 millimeter. No matter who you ask in the world, they will say VAR cannot intervene and will leave it at that. There is nothing we can do other than trust the assistant referee."

Bahattin Duran: "The ball doesn't look like it has gone out. If even a 1-millimeter projection of the ball touches the line, the ball is considered in play. The ball must make contact with the line. Even a 1-millimeter contact of the ball's projection with the line means it hasn't gone out. The result is, yes, we look from one angle, the ball looks clearly out. We look from a few angles, it looks like it hasn't gone out."

Bülent Yıldırım: In the VAR system, if you cannot prove the opposite of the decision made by the match official, the field official's decision is final. VAR cannot make such a determination. I say this based on my experience: this ball did not go out.

Bahattin Duran: "The circumference of the ball is 2pr, the radius comes to 10.82 from 2pr, it becomes 22 cm as a large r."

Deniz Çoban: So, for it to be completely out, we need to see 11 centimeters of grass.

Is the decision correct for the penalty Galatasaray won?

Bahattin Duran: The penalty decision is correct.

Deniz Çoban: The penalty decision is correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: The penalty decision is correct.

Is there an infringement in Muslera's intervention on Banza, is a penalty required?

Deniz Çoban: Muslera has a delayed move. Banza is heading the ball. Muslera's move is within the boundaries of football. If he made a fist and hit the back of the neck or the head, it would be an infringement. Muslera is trying to reach the ball; the palms of his hands come to the opponent. The decision to continue is correct.

Bahattin Duran: The decision to continue is correct. There is a slight intervention on his back.

Bülent Yıldırım: The decision to continue is correct. If he had slapped or punched, it would have been a penalty in any case.