The Trio team analyzes: Were the decisions regarding the red card given to Adana Demirspor and Fenerbahçe's 2 disallowed goals correct?

In the 20th week of the Süper Lig, Fenerbahçe defeated Adana Demirspor 4-0 away from home. The goals for the yellow-navy blues were scored by En-Nesyri (2), Dzeko, and Cenk Tosun. While Yusuf Barasi of Adana Demirspor received a red card, two of Fenerbahçe's goals were disallowed. The Trio team, Bülent Yıldırım, Bahattin Duran, and Deniz Çoban, analyzed the controversial incidents on beIN SPORTS.

13' Was the decision to play on correct in the incident where Edin Dzeko went down during a corner kick?

Bahattin Duran: The Adana Demirspor player made a very risky move. The number 55 for Adana Demirspor held Dzeko with both hands, grabbed him, and continued running with him; even though the ball did not land exactly in that area, he held, turned, and pulled him. It came to the area in front of Dzeko at that moment. He held and pulled him. This is a penalty.

Bülent Yıldırım: If the referee had given a penalty, no one could say anything. There is an intervention with both hands on the upper arm. This is a penalty. The referee on the field should have given a penalty. On the VAR side, in high-level training, two things are looked at for VAR to intervene in such interventions; the ball must be going to that area and the impact must be indisputable, or even if the ball does not land in the active area, we must see a crude, exaggerated, wrestling-like move. I guess VAR did not see either as sufficient. They did not intervene. I will not criticize VAR, but if the referee had caught it, there is an exaggerated move. A penalty would have been more correct.

Deniz Çoban: If the referee had given a penalty, no one could have objected. He made a risky move. VAR cannot interfere. I find the referee not giving a penalty justifiable. It is within the referee's discretion.

In the incident where Adana Demirspor expected a penalty, VAR also reviewed it; was the subsequent decision to play on correct?

Bahattin Duran: The ball did not hit Djiku's arm. His right arm is tucked in, his left arm is not tucked in, it is open as if he is covering his face. It hit his face over his tucked-in arm. The decision to play on is correct. Djiku was stunned when the ball hit his face.

Bülent Yıldırım: There is no contact with the open hand. The decision to play on is correct.

Deniz Çoban: It is true that it did not touch an open hand. The ball hit his cheek, close to his ear. The decision to play on is correct.

Was the referee's decision correct in the goal that was disallowed following a VAR intervention for Fenerbahçe, and was there a foul by İrfan Can?

Bahattin Duran: If a player uses both feet in sliding or lunging interventions for the ball, they must bear the responsibility for their action. Playing the ball is not enough on its own. İrfan Can played the ball with one foot, but he committed a foul on his opponent with the other. This incident should have been resolved on the field. This incident should not have been left to VAR. The VAR intervention is correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: This is an uncontrolled challenge. The contact should definitely have been seen on the field. Since there is clear evidence, the VAR intervention is correct. A yellow card for İrfan Can would have been more correct.

Deniz Çoban: He controlled the ball with his left foot but brought his opponent down with his right foot. His right foot has no business there. Just because he played the ball with his left foot does not mean he can commit a foul with his right foot. He must be responsible.

Was the red card given to Yusuf Barasi in the 55th minute correct?

Bülent Yıldırım: There is a transfer of force. The fact that his knee is bent has no meaning here. The studs have nothing to do with the ground. He stepped on the opponent's ankle. Serious foul play. The red card is correct, indisputable. This is the referee's decision. If the referee had shown a yellow card, VAR could not have intervened. The heel of Yusuf's boot did not meet the ground in any way. A transfer of force occurred. The heel issue is important. That is why I said last week regarding Dzeko's incident that there was a chance to play the ball and the heel was on the ground, so it was a yellow card. Here, the heel is completely on the opponent's ankle.

Bahattin Duran: This is the referee's decision. Last week, Dzeko made a risky move, his heel was on the ground, he was positioned, he extended his foot and stepped. When a moving player steps, the weight is greater. His left foot is not on the ground; he stepped on it and transferred more force. The referee's decision is correct. If he had shown a yellow card, we might have said the knee was bent. What is important to me is that all referees should ensure consistency in such incidents.

Deniz Çoban: This is being confused with the incident in the Konya match. Here, the player's heel is not on the ground. This means there is more transfer of force. It means he is transferring the weight of his body. In the Dzeko incident, the heel was on the ground. The heel being on the ground is a criterion for VAR and leads to a yellow card. If Yusuf Barasi's heel had been on the ground, I would have said yellow card. The heel is a criterion used in UEFA training.

Was the decision correct in Fenerbahçe's second disallowed goal?

Bahattin Duran: The foul decision and the disallowing of the goal are correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: The foul decision and the disallowing of the goal are correct.

Deniz Çoban: The foul decision and the disallowing of the goal are correct.