Former referees evaluate the controversial moments of the Trabzonspor - Fenerbahçe match

In the 11th week of the Süper Lig, Trabzonspor hosted Fenerbahçe. Fenerbahçe won the breathtaking match 3-2 with goals from Fred, Dzeko, and Amrabat. Trabzonspor's goals were scored by Banza.

Following the match, there were harsh reactions to the referee's decisions from both the Trabzonspor and Fenerbahçe camps. The cancellation of the goal Trabzonspor found with Okay Yokuşlu in the first half, the first penalty awarded to Trabzonspor, and the position where Fenerbahçe expected a penalty caused controversy in the sports community.

On the Trio program broadcast on beIN Sports, former referees evaluated the controversial moments that left their mark on the Trabzonspor - Fenerbahçe match.

The former referees commented on the positions that were controversial for both sides. Here are those comments;

TRABZONSPOR'S CANCELLED GOAL

Bülent Yıldırım: "There is no foul in this position. This incident occurred before the ball was even in play. If the referee had waited for the play to finish after the ball entered play, VAR could have intervened. In summary, I think it was a goal."

Bahattin Duran: "During Okay Yokuşlu's movement, the ball had not yet entered play. Naturally, the position cannot be penalized as a foul. Okay and Mert are holding each other. Both of their hands are on each other's jerseys, and in my opinion, Okay scores the goal in a legitimate manner."

Deniz Çoban: "Not every pull or hold is a violation. Okay held the jersey, but it was a mutual holding. It is a move within the spirit of football."

DENSWIL'S FOUL ON OSAYI

Bahattin Duran: "The action by Denswil is near the knee. It's a dangerous area. He is showing his studs to the opponent. It's a very risky move. If the referee had shown a red card, no one could object. Most of the public would accept it. I accept the yellow card with reservations. Why? Because I don't think Denswil was able to transfer all his power to the opponent. The sole of the boot hits the opponent. There is no brutality or excessive force. That's why it's a yellow card."

Bülent Yıldırım: "Where the contact is, how it happens, and with what force are important. The knee is bent. He played the ball, he had good intentions. In terms of force transfer, the fact that the knee is bent saves the player. The foot doesn't land fully. In summary, I accept the yellow card for these reasons. VAR is out of the picture. If the referee on the field had given a red card, we wouldn't have criticized it based on the philosophy of protecting player health."

Deniz Çoban: "This action is close to a red card. It pushed the boundaries. It's critical from the referee's perspective. I would have found a red card more correct."

THE PENALTY AWARDED TO TRABZONSPOR

Bülent Yıldırım: "There is no direct blow to Okay's foot. The video assistant referee intervention is wrong. I don't think the position is a penalty."

Bahattin Duran: "The VAR intervention is definitely wrong. The position should have started with a goal kick. Play should have been allowed to continue on the field; the penalty decision is wrong."

Deniz Çoban: "The VAR intervention is wrong. Technically, if there is a foul when the ball is in play, a penalty decision can be made. However, in this case, if there were a clear and obvious foul, a yellow card would also be required. In this position, there is a subsequent intervention by the Fenerbahçe player, but even though the referee watched it, he did not give a yellow card to the Fenerbahçe player. In my opinion, there is no penalty in this position either."

TRABZONSPOR'S SECOND PENALTY

Bülent Yıldırım: "Çağlar's move is risky. In my opinion, it is a penalty. However, the referee on the pitch should have made this decision. I think the VAR intervention here was wrong."

Bahattin Duran: "In UEFA standards, such positions are not intervened in, but the situation is different in our country's football climate. Çağlar's late challenge also necessitates a penalty decision."

Deniz Çoban: "The player's extended foot fails to touch the ball and makes contact with the opponent. If the referee on the pitch had made this call, we wouldn't need to discuss VAR here. I say the VAR intervention is conditionally correct. Our standards in Turkey have fallen to this level."

IS THERE A FOUL IN FENERBAHÇE'S EQUALIZER GOAL?

Bahattin Duran: "Let me say from the start, the goal is legitimate. There is no foul."

Bülent Yıldırım: "This position is not a foul."

Deniz Çoban: "I am also of the opinion that the goal should have been awarded. The decision is correct."

THE MOMENT FENERBAHÇE EXPECTED A PENALTY

Bahattin Duran: "I see that the ball hits the Trabzonspor player's hand in an unnatural way when he opens his arm. I think VAR should have called the referee to show that the ball touched the hand. At the same time, I think they should have shown that moment to evaluate whether En-Nesyri stepped on his opponent while jumping. The referee is the one who will make the final decision. I believe a penalty should have been awarded here."

Bülent Yıldırım: "If the ball meets the hand, it is a penalty. If there is an intervention to the opponent's face, it is a penalty. We can see that there is an intervention to Çağlar's face. I think this position is a penalty and required a VAR intervention."

Deniz Çoban: "I think VAR should have called the referee here. In my opinion, it is a penalty, but at the same time, the move made by En-Nesyri is also a foul. The referee on the field should have decided this."