Was Abdulkadir Parmak’s challenge a penalty in the Sivasspor – Galatasaray match? Former referees weigh in…

Sivasspor hosted Galatasaray in the postponed 16th week of the Süper Lig.

Galatasaray finished the first half with a 1-0 lead thanks to a goal by Kerem Demirbay. Sivasspor determined the final score of the match with a penalty goal by Fode Koita in the 86th minute.

With this result, Galatasaray fell 2 points behind the league leader, Fenerbahçe. Following the match, the challenge involving Sivasspor's Abdulkadir Parmak sparked penalty debates.

The controversial moments of the Sivasspor – Galatasaray match were discussed on the Trio program broadcast on beINSports.

WAS THE CHALLENGE WHERE HALİL DERVİŞOĞLU FELL A PENALTY?

44' Is the decision to continue play correct in the position where Galatasaray expected a penalty?

Bahattin Duran: I find the decision to continue correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: Halil played the ball. Kamara's contact with him did not hinder his ability to play the ball. What is needed for this to be a penalty? Either a forceful kick or a stamp. Looking at it from here, I don't think Kamara's intervention was a stamp; the contact was within the normal flow of football. The decision to continue is correct.

Deniz Çoban: The player played the ball on the ground, and Kamara has a small contact. It is not Kamara who brings Halil down. The decision to continue is correct.

WAS THE CHALLENGE WHERE KEREM DEMİRBAY FELL A PENALTY?

52' Is the decision to continue play correct in the position where Galatasaray expected a penalty?

Bülent Yıldırım: Due to the pitch being very heavy, there were strange contacts. There were many positions open to interpretation. Both players had a chance to play the ball. There was a small contact; Kerem felt it and let go. If Burak had stepped on his opponent's foot or brought his opponent down by sticking out his knee, I would say penalty. It is a difficult position to judge. I respect the referee's decision to continue.

Bahattin Duran: When we look from behind the goal, Burak Kapacak extends his leg, and Kerem Demirbay also extends his. This leg does not reflect as a blow to Kerem. Both of their feet meet and land on the ground. I find the decision to continue correct.

Deniz Çoban: I agree, the decision to continue is correct.

DID ABDÜLKADİR PARMAK HANDLE THE BALL WHILE FALLING, AND WAS IT A PENALTY?

65' Is there a penalty in the position where it is claimed the ball hit Abdülkadir Parmak's hand?

Bülent Yıldırım: This fall seemed natural to me. He does not see the ball while falling. Therefore, I don't think the referee was mistaken.

Bahattin Duran: The player is unaware of where the ball is while falling. According to my understanding of football, these movements as a whole are natural. Therefore, there is no violation in the ball touching his hand.

Deniz Çoban: There is no foul committed against Abdülkadir here. There is no charge that would disrupt him enough to make him do a somersault. He falls by exaggerating, perhaps thinking, 'Can I get a foul here while I'm at it?' In my opinion, the player also knows where the ball is while falling and takes that risk without tucking his arms in. Therefore, since he falls by exaggerating the natural action of his body, I don't think it is correct. I would have found it more correct to award a penalty.

WAS THE PENALTY AWARDED TO SİVASSPOR CORRECT?

83' Is the referee's decision correct regarding the penalty awarded in favor of Sivasspor?

Bahattin Duran: I think the penalty decision is correct.

Bülent Yıldırım: The penalty decision is correct.

Deniz Çoban: The penalty decision is correct.

(Footage taken from beINSports)