The Trio team analyzed the incidents in the Fenerbahçe match: Did Djiku handle the ball? Was the penalty awarded to Fenerbahçe correct?

Fenerbahçe faced Sivasspor in the Super Lig. Winning the match 4-0 with goals from Samet, Tadic, Amrabat, and Saint-Maximin, Fenerbahçe finished the week without dropping points.

The Trio team evaluated the controversial incidents of the match, in which Fenerbahçe defeated Sivasspor 4-0 at home, on the broadcaster. Here are the debated decisions from the match:

Did Djiku handle the ball before Fenerbahçe's first goal?

Deniz Çoban: The ball comes from almost out of space, it falls from space. Two players are fighting for the ball coming from above. Both players' hands and arms are in a natural position. That ball coming from above accidentally falls onto the Fenerbahçe player's hand; it could have also fallen onto the Sivasspor player's hand. The continuation of the attack resulted in a goal. A clean goal. A goal so clean that there is no room for doubt.

Bülent Yıldırım: In accidental handballs, even if the handball is accidental, if a goal occurs immediately afterward, it can be canceled. Let UEFA call it a 'rain ball', I'll call it a ball falling from a minaret. It is not an infringement, it is not a penalty. The VAR intervention stems from a lack of knowledge of the rules.

Bahattin Duran: Djiku did not handle the ball intentionally. Fenerbahçe's goal is legitimate. Despite the incorrect VAR intervention, the referee awarded the goal; we congratulate the referee.

Is the decision on the penalty awarded to Fenerbahçe correct?

Deniz Çoban: There is a slight contact of the ball with the goalkeeper's hand in the top left. There is an expression we always use when evaluating an infringement; did it restrict the player's movements, did it take away their advantage? After this ball passes, there is an intervention that restricts En-Nesyri's movements. En-Nesyri is trying to get under the ball and pass the goalkeeper; he will shoot the ball into the goal with a second move. He was going to go for the ball, he was brought down. We cannot say the goalkeeper played the ball. The ball grazed the goalkeeper's hand, En-Nesyri had cleared the ball from the goalkeeper. Whether he could reach it or not is another matter, is there a chance? He has another chance. The goalkeeper took that chance away from him. The penalty is correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: Even though the goalkeeper tried to play the ball, he could not play it and blocked En-Nesyri's foot with two moves. The penalty is correct.

Bahattin Duran: I absolutely agree. The penalty decision is very correct.

Is Tadic's position offside in Fenerbahçe's 3rd goal?

Bülent Yıldırım: If Tadic had made contact, it would have been offside anyway. If he had deceived the goalkeeper to avoid the ball, it would still have been offside. If he had completely blocked the goalkeeper's line of sight, it would still have been offside. There is no contact; two Sivasspor players blocked the view before Tadic did. It does not cause an obvious move or an obvious delay. If there is a subjective decision, the decision of the match official is respected. The goal is clean.

Deniz Çoban: Among the criteria Bülent Hocam listed, there is also this: are the player who is in an offside position and the goalkeeper on the same line? They are on the same line. The closer he is to the goalkeeper, the more you think about offside. One criterion fits, another does not. The goalkeeper leans to the left for a moment and then straightens up. The reason he leans to the left and straightens up could be the Fenerbahçe player, or his own teammate... The goalkeeper sees the ball at the last moment. It is completely complex, a position where every opinion is to be respected. I cannot say it is a clean goal, nor can I say it is offside. One must accept the referee's interpretation. I am closer to offside, but the decision on the field is essential. VAR has nothing to do with this position.

Bahattin Duran: It is a very subjective and borderline position. If Tadic had been close to the goalkeeper, we would have said offside. I think the goalkeeper is standing, he cannot see, he leans to the left and then jumps to the right, so the goalkeeper loses time, he is affected. I am closer to offside, but in all their training, UEFA conveys to referees and assistant referees that more priority should be given to goals in such positions. I am stating this specifically. We cannot say the goal decision is wrong. If the assistant had raised the flag, VAR would not have interfered with that either.