Home > Gallery,Sports News > The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

In the 14th week of the Süper Lig, Fenerbahçe defeated Gaziantep FK 3-1, increasing its points to 32. With this result, Fenerbahçe reduced the point gap with Galatasaray to 3. The Trio team evaluated the controversial decisions in the match.

12punto

The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

In the 14th week of the Super Lig, Fenerbahçe and Gaziantep FK faced off at Ülker Stadium. The Yellow-Navies won the match 3-1.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Fenerbahçe's goals in the match were scored by Oğuz Aydın, Rodrigo Becao, and Edin Dzeko. Gaziantep FK's only goal in the match came from David Okereke.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Following the match, former referees Bülent Yıldırım, Deniz Çoban, and Bahattin Duran evaluated the match's plays on the Trio program broadcast by the official broadcaster. Here is the evaluation of the controversial decisions in the match:

The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

MINUTE 5 | The play where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty

Bahattin Duran: If the ball hits Osayi's hand, because his left hand is not in a natural position, we would call this a penalty if it is inside the field lines. There will be many who say this is a penalty, and many who say it is not.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Bülent Yıldırım: If it hits the hand, even if it deflects, because his left arm is high, we would call it a penalty. If there is contact, since it is on the line, a penalty should be awarded. When we scan the angles, it looks like there is a possibility of contact in one, but since I cannot prove it in another, I respect the VAR's decision.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Deniz Çoban: The video assistant referee likely watched this by splitting the screen into four. It might look like it touched in one place and look different in another. Perhaps four angles show it hitting the hand, and one shows it not hitting. If we were using the chipped ball from the World Cup, we would have solved this. The referee on the field said play on, I accept that. If it hits the hand, it is a penalty. The referee's judgment is important.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

MINUTE 29 | Becao's intervention on Arda Kızıldağ

Bülent Yıldırım: Becao committed two penalties, both were missed. One, he pulled the opponent's jersey. Two, he tripped his opponent. Let's say the referee didn't see it. How could VAR not see it? I think this is an indifference that has no explanation. It would enter the top 3 in terms of the clarity of a penalty.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Bahattin Duran: While trying to put on the jersey and while exiting the penalty area, he makes an unsportsmanlike move, and for me, it is a clear penalty. It is a penalty for pulling the jersey. Becao's subsequent move is also a penalty.
The Trio team explains: Was the decision correct in the position where Gaziantep FK expected a penalty?

Deniz Çoban: It is a dual challenge. He is trying to get free. The jersey was pulled all the way up. The player will let go of the jersey to get free and move on. Who can say anything about pulling a jersey that is coming off the back? This would be one of the notable plays in VAR history.