Former referees analyze controversial moments from the Eyüpspor - Fenerbahçe match on Trio: Was there a foul before Fenerbahçe's goal? Was it correct to disallow Eyüpspor's goal? Was Caner's challenge on Osayi a penalty?

ikas Eyüpspor and Fenerbahçe faced off in the 17th week of the Süper Lig. As the match ended in a 1-1 draw, Fenerbahçe suffered a significant loss in the title race.

Following the match, the referee's decisions sparked debate in the sports community. The TRİO program, broadcast on the rights-holding broadcaster beINSports, evaluated the controversial moments of the Eyüpspor – Fenerbahçe match.

Does the ball hit Robin Yalçın's hand after Dusan Tadic's shot? Was the decision to continue correct?

Bahattin Duran: The ball hits the hand. It hit Robin Yalçın's hand. The hand is in the most natural position. There is definitely no violation.

Bülent Yıldırım: The decision to continue is correct. The hand is in a natural position.

Deniz Çoban: The decision to continue is correct.

Is the decision to continue correct after Melih's challenge on Fred in the 32nd minute?

Bülent Yıldırım: A delayed challenge, targeting the opponent with the studs of his boot. It was a clear, indisputable yellow card. If you don't catch this, bad-intentioned players will continue to make such challenges. The referee missed it. A clear yellow card was missed. It is an example of a moment where the game started to deteriorate.

Bahattin Duran: If he had caught the card here and said, 'I will not allow these types of challenges,' the referee would have taken control. The yellow card was clear. He should have stopped the game and shown a yellow card to Melih. If the foot had been on the ground, we would be talking about the possibility of it turning from yellow to red.

Deniz Çoban: Fred acted sportsmanlike. He jumped and continued. Does he have to lie on the ground and roll 2-3 times to get attention! To catch these types of positions, your concentration must be on point. If you catch these, the players' trust in you increases.

Should a card have been shown for Luccas Claro's challenge on Szymanski?

Bahattin Duran: Claro is behind Szymanski. Even though Claro's focus point is the ball, he actually made a dangerous and risky move by lifting his foot. There are 3 possibilities in this position. Even though Claro made a risky move, did he hit Szymanski because his foot landed accidentally? No, he did this knowingly, he stepped on him; depending on the intensity, it would be a yellow card. A deliberate step would be a red card. Even though he made a risky move, Claro accidentally stepped on him while bringing his foot down. I am leaning towards this. There is no card in this position.

Bülent Yıldırım: Claro's entire focus is on the ball. The timing of the challenge is part of football. Claro has no chance to adjust. Szymanski's right foot came back as he was falling. It is a clear, indisputable accidental step within the game. It is an action within football. No need for a card.

Deniz Çoban: Accidental steps are of course not punished. You jump for a header and step on someone without having any other choice, or you step on them while following the ball in the air. When the opponent is in front and you are behind, you must be in control of your movements. He lifted his foot when he had no chance to play the ball, disrupted the opponent, and stepped on the falling opponent. There is a fundamental lack of control here. It is not an accident!

You are responsible for the move you make. If you can take precautions, you will. The Fenerbahçe player is in front, the ball came to him, he came from behind and disrupted him in a way that shouldn't happen. Then I don't accept that he accidentally stepped on his foot while falling. This move should be a yellow card or higher. I wouldn't say no to a red card either. This is not an accident, I wouldn't call it an accident. There is a clear statement in the IFAB explanations; if you make a move while seeing the opponent, you are at fault. It is not something done while jumping and falling. If it is an accident, why did he call a foul for the move.

Was there a foul in the goal scored by Fenerbahçe? Are the cards for Caner Erkin and Arda Turan correct?

Bahattin Duran: There is a challenge by İrfan Can on Caner. The ball then came to the Eyüpspor player. From there, it came to the Fenerbahçe goalkeeper İrfan Can. The referee allowed play to continue. Then En-Nesyri scored. The move İrfan Can Kahveci made on Caner warrants a foul and a yellow card. The referee is aware that Caner is on the ground while the ball is with the Fenerbahçe goalkeeper. The referee should have stopped the game. He should have come to Caner and ensured he received treatment quickly. Everyone pointed there, the Eyüpspor players. It was a foul, it was a yellow card. The referee did not stop the game. According to the VAR protocol, VAR did not intervene. A foul occurred in the midfield. The starting moment of the position, the attacking phase, is not that moment. After İrfan Can Kahveci fouled Caner, the ball came to the center; Ahmed Kutucu shot and the ball came to İrfan Can Eğribayat. The attacking starting phase is the ball coming to İrfan Can Eğribayat. For this reason, VAR did not intervene in this position. According to the VAR protocol, it is correct that VAR did not intervene.

Bülent Yıldırım: The position is a foul and a yellow card, no doubt. The referee missed it. Ahmed Kutucu shot the ball and the phase ended.

Deniz Çoban: There is no need for VAR intervention here. Coach Arda was sent off. Correct, he is violating his area to protest the referee's decision. Is Coach Arda protesting the foul or something else? The subject I will criticize the referee most heavily on is that a player is lying down, İrfan Can is aware, he went to Caner's side. He should have stopped it while the ball was in the goalkeeper's hands...

Is the yellow card Çağlar received on the set piece correct?

Bahattin Duran: Çağlar made a risky move and received a yellow card. I accept the yellow card. The elbow is close, the player is close, pushing. This is referee interpretation. The referee decided that there was a push with the elbow. I respect the referee's interpretation. Even if he had shown a red card, I would have said the referee's decision was correct. The referee saw and evaluated it. A risky move. I accept the yellow card.

Bülent Yıldırım: A move made to the face in off-the-ball play is above the tolerable level. It would have been more correct if he had shown a red card.

Deniz Çoban: Every position is different. We talked about the Yunus position last week, we said it was correct. Is it serious foul play, is it violent conduct, is it while fighting for the ball or not? The book clearly says, if you make a move targeting the opponent's face in an area where the ball is not present while not fighting for the ball, this is a red card. What En-Nesyri did can be ignored, but this is not something that can be ignored. In Yunus's case, there is a fight for the ball, here there is no ball. A red card is required.

Does Melih's challenge on Fred require a yellow card?

Bülent Yıldırım: No doubt. Melih got emboldened, he stepped on his opponent's ankle area from above after the ball, with force. A clear yellow card. A second yellow card should have been shown to Caner as well.

Bahattin Duran: This position is a yellow card. It is Melih's third yellow card. The referee allowed play to continue here. Then he blew for a foul. Caner's reaction to the foul he called afterwards should also have been Caner's second yellow card in my opinion. It should have been Melih's third and Caner's second yellow card. Melih has no cards at all, he finished the match without a card.

Deniz Çoban: Caner, Melih... Melih has 4-5 yellow cards. Caner has 3 yellow cards, two of them are guaranteed. Caner came over pointing his finger. You should have drawn the line there.

Is there a handball by Melih inside the penalty area during Tadic's cross in the 64th minute? Should a penalty decision have been given?

Bülent Yıldırım: There is a touch by Melih with 2 or 3 fingers during Tadic's cross. It was missed. There is contact with the ball. The ball rose. It is a handball of a nature that requires VAR intervention, we don't think about a card for Melih.

Deniz Çoban: No yellow card was even considered for Melih. The referee didn't even suspect it. Maybe if he were in the right place he would have suspected, he is in the wrong place. He would have seen the hand in the air and intervened. A very important mistake. A clear error. VAR should have intervened. A penalty should have been given.

Bahattin Duran: It is really hard to see this position on the field. If VAR can prove this, it should intervene and have the penalty given. There is evidence in the hand, there is the deflection of the ball, and I see clearly that the player's fingers are handling the ball. There is sufficient evidence. VAR intervention and a penalty should have been given.

In the 65th minute, Osayi fell to the ground with Caner's challenge. Is the decision to continue correct, is a penalty required?

Bülent Yıldırım: The position is a penalty. This is not a simple contact. Caner prepared his elbow, he made contact with Osayi's ribs in a painful way. This position is a penalty. While he could have used his shoulder, he used his elbow as a tool and struck him.

Bahattin Duran: Caner prepared his elbow and struck with his elbow. Penalty and yellow card. Deniz Çoban: Two weeks ago, the VAR referee of this match, İlker Coşkun, intervened in the Trabzonspor - Kasımpaşa match as VAR for a challenge made on Enis Destan, a move that was lighter, less injurious, and less effective than this, and had a penalty given. There is no standard between the two decisions. If the referee had given a penalty, I wouldn't have objected. There is a malicious intent, an elbowing. It can also be evaluated as a challenge within football. I agree with the referee.

Bülent Yıldırım: I do not agree with you. Football is not played with elbows. Caner is not using his shoulder...

Deniz Çoban: The referee saw it and said it was within football, I agree with the referee.

Bahattin Duran: Are you saying it's not a penalty after watching it from here?

Deniz Çoban: Such challenges always exist in football. I won't criticize the referee's decision to continue. I will criticize VAR, if it made such a VAR intervention 2 weeks ago, it should have made one here too.

Is the assistant referee's foul decision correct in Eyüpspor's cancelled goal?

Bülent Yıldırım: The assistant referee ruled for a foul in a position in the middle where there was no foul, unnecessarily. The referee allowed play to continue. I said, I guess he will award the goal. He ruled that it was a foul and went back to the very beginning. I look at it from the right, from the left, from every side, there is no foul. VAR is disabled in these types of interventions. Eyüp's clean goal has gone down the drain.

Bahattin Duran: The assistant referee's intervention is wrong. If the referee is very far from the position, the assistant referee can make his own decision. There is slight contact with Djiku's hand, it is not a foul. The intervention is wrong.

Deniz Çoban: There is no foul. A very simple challenge.

(Footage is taken from beINSports)