What did the Trio team say about the incidents in the Sivasspor-Fenerbahçe match?

In the 33rd week of the Süper Lig, Fenerbahçe drew 2-2 away against Sivasspor.

Fenerbahçe's goals were scored by Fred and İrfan Can Kahveci, while Sivasspor's goals were scored by Fode Koita and Rey Manaj.

Following the match, former referees Deniz Çoban, Bahattin Duran, and Bülent Yıldırım evaluated the match incidents on the Trio program broadcast on beIN Sports.

The incident before Sivasspor's disallowed goal in the 12th minute

Deniz Çoban: It was a match where the decisions would be highly debated. İrfan did not make a move that required a foul. It was a completely wrong whistle. The play continued and resulted in a goal. It was ruled offside. If it had been a goal, it would have created a huge controversy. One must be more careful, especially with whistles blown near the goal.

Bahattin Duran: This decision is definitely wrong. Uğur Çiftçi steps on his foot, but it is incidental to the play. The game should have continued. This decision was wrong. The assistant referee made a very correct determination regarding the disallowed goal.

Bülent Yıldırım: It was a foul called completely in the wrong direction.

The incident where İsmail Yüksek received a yellow card

Bahattin Duran: İsmail Yüksek loses the ball. He went for the ball by sliding. For me, this challenge is not uncontrolled. He did not sweep his opponent. It should only be a foul.

Bülent Yıldırım: He neither showed his studs nor swept the player. It should only be a foul.

Deniz Çoban: I find the yellow card harsh. I think it should only be a foul. İsmail is as careful as he can be.

The penalty awarded to Sivasspor

Bahattin Duran: There is a very slight contact, but for me, this contact does not require the player to play poorly. It has no impact. The ball is clearly going out for a goal kick. Livakovic opened his legs. Livakovic's foot and Manaj's foot met on the ground. However, Livakovic did not slide in an uncontrolled manner. There is only a meeting of feet on the ground. Djiku's involvement in the meeting of Livakovic's and Manaj's feet is also not enough for a penalty. The most important point here is this: the VAR intervention was very late. There was also a situation regarding offside. The incident was examined in great detail. He called Cihan Aydın to the screen with a recommendation to review. If the VAR room recommends a review to the referee, they say, 'We will show you the moment of contact.' The conclusion we draw from this is that they called the referee for the challenge made by Livakovic. If it had been an uncontrolled contact, he would have had to show Livakovic a yellow card. The VAR intervention is not wrong; it is very wrong.

Deniz Çoban: In Riva, they are showing Livakovic's move. It is a very wrong VAR intervention. We will make our evaluation for the penalty based on whether there is an impact. Both the defender coming from behind and the sliding goalkeeper only have contact with the opponent, but there is no challenge that would restrict their movements. Let's say the referee saw the contact, and VAR found it impactful. The defender's action, let's say it disrupted his foot coordination, is not taken into account. If Livakovic's movement had been unbalanced, VAR could have intervened. By not showing Livakovic a yellow card, he admitted that VAR made an incorrect intervention. Since he didn't show it, Livakovic's move was not uncontrolled, but careless. The referee's assessment is correct. There is nothing he didn't see. The VAR intervention is wrong. There is nothing that resembles a penalty. You have to play this in real-time. They stop it and play it in slow motion. In slow motion, it looks as if the impact is increasing.

Bülent Yıldırım: There is more than one problem. Djiku has a challenge to disrupt the position. If this impact had been effective, if it had disrupted the opponent, he would have deserved a clear red card. From a VAR perspective, if there had been an infringement here, they would have shown it. Djiku makes an attempt. There is a small contact, but no effective contact. VAR called him saying there was contact with the left foot. There is nothing that disrupts the position. If Livakovic had shown his studs, I would say there might be an infringement. He made a natural challenge. There is no sweeping of the opponent after the contact. VAR should not have interfered in this incident. I don't know why they intervened. It was a very wrong intervention. I see the VAR calling process, the way of reviewing, and the decision as wrong.

News Source: 12punto