The Trio team has the final word: Was the decision correct in the position where Galatasaray expected a penalty?

The match between Hatayspor and Galatasaray in the 20th week of the Süper Lig ended in a 1-1 draw. The Trio team, consisting of Bülent Yıldırım, Bahattin Duran, and Deniz Çoban, evaluated the controversial positions.

4' Galatasaray's position was cut short due to an offside call. Calvo reacted to the referee because the assistant referee raised the offside flag late.

Bülent Yıldırım: There is no foul by Jakobs beforehand. The assistant referee's offside flag is correct. Calvo's subsequent reaction is a yellow card.

Bahattin Duran: It is clearly offside. When Calvo reacts to the assistant referee like this, he must be shown a yellow card.

Deniz Çoban: The offside is very clear, there is no doubt. Just because Calvo doesn't like the decision doesn't mean he can gesture with his hands and arms.

14' Calvo's foul on Osimhen

Bülent Yıldırım: A very strong and uncontrolled blow. The position should be penalized with a yellow card.

Bahattin Duran: The ball is under Osimhen's control. Calvo has no intention of playing the ball; it is a clear foul and a yellow card.

Deniz Çoban: The referee needed to pay attention to this player. Cihan Aydın remained too passive in this match. The referee missed a clear foul and a yellow card.

32' Was the 'play on' decision correct in the position where Galatasaray expected a penalty?

Bülent Yıldırım: Kilama makes an extra movement. It should have been a penalty anywhere in the world. If that arm had never left the ground and met the ball, there would be no problem, but there was an extra movement. It was a 100% penalty and required VAR intervention.

Bahattin Duran: The position is a clear penalty. There should have been a VAR intervention.

Deniz Çoban: This is a penalty according to UEFA rules. 100% penalty. Cihan Aydın was not ready for the match.

34' Calvo's intervention on Berkan

Bülent Yıldırım: A delayed intervention. A yellow card was necessary.

Bahattin Duran: This is clear now.

Deniz Çoban: Minute 34. According to the Trio, Calvo should have received 3 yellow cards.

52' Was there an infringement in the penalty won by Galatasaray?

Bahattin Duran: This position is a penalty. The VAR intervention in this position is wrong. It is a decision the referee on the field should have made. It is not an uncontrolled stamp, not a very clear strike, not a 'low tackle'... The reason for the penalty is Cemali. It is Cemali's failure to hit the ball he extended his leg for, and his knee making contact with Mertens' knee. It is a penalty, but I am explaining why VAR should not have intervened. If there is very clear evidence of knee contact, then it is intervened. Cemali made a timing error, extended his leg, could not hit the ball, and his knee hit Mertens' knee. However, I do not have very clear evidence. Is this a clear and obvious error as written in the VAR protocol? Does VAR intervene? The answer to these questions for me is no. The referee is also not in a good position. The referee should be in the right place and give the penalty on the field. The VAR intervention is wrong. Consequently, the penalty is correct, it should have been given on the field.

Bülent Yıldırım: Careless intervention. Cemali did not play the ball. No one can say anything if the referee gives a penalty on the field. In any high-level UEFA match, VAR cannot intervene in this contact. The VAR intervention is wrong, but the decision is correct. It is beyond the limits of the VAR protocol. I did not like the performance of VAR. Careless intervention, penalty given. I respect it.

Deniz Çoban: There is a VAR intervention for a careless intervention if it can be proven, if it is clear and obvious. Since this is a careless intervention, it is a penalty. We are not objecting. The referee should give this. The one who will find and extract the impact is the match referee. Let's congratulate VAR for this. It was good that it was fast, without waiting too long.