The Trio team evaluated the controversial decisions in the derby: Was the referee's decision correct on the penalty position that Mourinho protested?

In the giant clash played in Kadıköy in the 30th week of the Süper Lig, Fenerbahçe defeated Trabzonspor 4-1. However, beyond the score of the match, refereeing decisions and certain incidents left their mark on the agenda. In the Trio program, broadcast on beIN Sports, where refereeing decisions are analyzed in detail, former referees Bahattin Duran, Bülent Yıldırım, and Deniz Çoban commented on the critical moments of the match.

The incident in the 45th minute, which Fenerbahçe manager Jose Mourinho reacted to by saying "It was a very clear penalty" during the post-match press conference, was one of the most debated moments on the Trio program. In the mentioned incident, the fact that a penalty was not awarded in favor of Fenerbahçe following an intervention inside the penalty area had caused Mourinho's harsh criticism.

Here are all the controversial decisions in the Fenerbahçe-Trabzonspor match:

Is the yellow card shown to Djiku in the 7th minute correct?

Deniz Çoban: There is nothing to discuss about this yellow card. The definition of a yellow card

Bülent Yıldırım: An indisputable yellow card. He is diving in an uncontrolled manner. The dive itself is already a yellow card.

Bahattin Duran: A very clear yellow card. The referee was not mistaken here.

Is the yellow card decision correct for the foul Pedro Malheiro committed against Maximin in the 13th minute?

Bülent Yıldırım: Two consecutive fouls were committed against Maximin. The referee first said "advantage." It was a foul committed towards the ball but from behind. If a yellow card is to be issued here, I would prefer Lundstram because the timing of Lundstram's foul was more effective than Malheiro's.

Deniz Çoban: I don't think he called a foul on the second action. If he had called a foul on the second one, he wouldn't have taken the ball back; he would have had the foul taken from where the second action occurred. According to the referee, the foul committed against Maximin was by Malheiro, but the other one is not a foul. I think the other one is a foul too. If he calls the first one a foul, I don't see anything worthy of a yellow card there.

Bahattin Duran: I am of the same opinion; Malheiro's foul is not a yellow card foul. I also think Lundstram should have received a yellow card.

Is the yellow card decision received by Sofyan Amrabat in the 18th minute correct? |

Bülent Yıldırım: Amrabat swung his foot with risky timing and immediately pulled his knee back so as not to transfer power the moment he saw his opponent. A yellow card is sufficient.

Deniz Çoban: This is a classic yellow card; nothing more can be considered.

Bahattin Duran: I also think it is an indisputable yellow card; it cannot be more. As he brings his foot from right to left, it comes towards the opponent's shoulder. It is an uncontrolled movement, but it cannot be described as serious foul play.

Is the cancellation of the goal scored by Zubkov in the 22nd minute due to offside correct?

Bülent Yıldırım: Zubkov was offside from start to finish before this beautiful strike. There is no doubt.

Bahattin Duran: The footage is already very clear. The goal was canceled with a correct decision.

Should a penalty have been awarded in favor of Fenerbahçe in the position between Mustafa Eskihellaç and Tadic in the Trabzonspor penalty area in the 40th minute?

Deniz Çoban: A correct offensive foul decision. The Trabzonspor player is closer to the ball and as he tries to shield the ball and turn, Tadic comes and commits a foul. An appropriate assessment.

Bülent Yıldırım: Mustafa Eskihellaç does not make a move to disrupt his opponent by seeing him from the front; Tadic comes and makes contact with him. This contact stems from Tadic's press. If the referee were not mobile and not at the right angle, he could have been mistaken here. I am of the opinion that it is a correct offensive foul.

Bahattin Duran: Mustafa Eskihellaç opens his left foot, but this is not Tadic's ball. Tadic is further back. He opens his foot to take position, and Tadic comes from behind and commits this foul. The referee makes a correct decision here.

Does Fred's shot hit Zubkov's hand in the 45th minute, is the position a penalty?

Bülent Yıldırım: One of the very, very exceptional positions. In 90 out of 100 such positions involving such body movements in such shots, a penalty is awarded. When I watched it for the first time, I also thought it was a penalty. When we looked at the angles one by one, what did I conclude? What did Zubkov do before the ball hit the player's body? He closed his arm. The arm is attached to the body at the moment of the ball's contact. After the impact, the arm went out due to the effect of the recoil. Like VAR, I did not see any clear and obvious evidence and violation here that would require a penalty. Therefore, I think the referee's decision is correct. |

Deniz Çoban: The body is not expanding. He has hidden his arm. The arm opens because the player turns after the ball hits. My opinion is that it is not a penalty. If the referee had given it, I wouldn't have objected to the penalty. It is also correct that VAR did not intervene. |

Bahattin Duran: I cannot prove from any angle that he opened his arm beforehand before the ball hit his elbow. I am of the same opinion as the referee.