Super LeagueIn the most important match of the 11th week in Trabzonspor with Fenerbahce shared his trump cards.
Hosted by the claret-blues Akyazı StadiumThere was a controversial position in the first half of the match played in .
Trabzonspor in the 38th minute of the Fenerbahçe match Okay Yokuslu He scored with but the referee Oguzhan CakirBefore the goal kick, he whistled for a foul while the ball was in the air.
Referee Çakır, on the corner kick taken Stefano Denswilbefore Okay Yokuslu’s header Alexander DjikuHe pointed out that he committed a foul against .
THE GAME CONTINUES
Even though Trabzonspor players objected for the goal, the referee continued the game.
Here is that position:
This position also made a lot of noise on social media.
AHMET ÇAKAR: ACUN ILICALI, ARE YOU HAPPY?
Commentator and former referee Ahmet Cakaraddressed Fenerbahçe Vice President Acun Ilıcalı with his post during the halftime. Çakar shared the following:
In his later post, Ahmet Çakar called on TFF for the VAR referee of the match, Atilla Karaoğlan. Çakar stated that Karaoğlan manipulated the match, “Hey TFF. The man whose license will be revoked tonight is VAR referee Atilla Karaoğlan. He literally manipulated the match and did it knowingly. It is Atilla Karaoğlan who criticizes Volkan Bayaslan, who canceled the goal scored by İcardi months ago.” he said.
DENİZ ATEŞ BITNEL: A CLEAN GOAL WAS CANCELLED
Former FIFA referee Deniz Ateş Bitnel from his social media account “There was no violation before the goal scored by Trabzonspor! The clean goal was cancelled!” He shared.
SERDAR ALİ ÇELİKLER: THEY MADE THE GOAL IN BREAD
Commentator Serdar Ali Çelikler is on Vole Youtube channel. “They made Trabzonspor’s goal a treat. Why did he do it? Because it is Turkish Refereeship. Just because he is 24 years old and inexperienced. He was scared… He said, ‘Oh man, I don’t want to have a headache.’ he commented.
Mustafa Çulcu: In my opinion, the position where the referee calls a foul is never a foul. When you cancel this goal you are committing football murder! (A Sports)
Fırat Aydınus: In the 37th minute of the match, in the position where the ball went to Fenerbahçe’s net, Mert said, “Even if the ball is in play when it remains on the ground, there is no foul in the position and this is goal regulation, but the ball is not in play here anyway, so the referee cannot call a foul on this. (TV 8,5)
Erman Toroğlu: The referee’s decision is wrong, the position is a clear goal. I will show you such a position 30 times in this match. (EKOL TV)
IS THE FOUL JUDGMENT CORRECT IN OKAY’S INTERVENTION ON MERT?
Bahattin Duran: If Okay committed a foul on Mert Müldür, he did it now. According to the referee, this is a foul. The ball is not in play yet. Therefore, this position cannot be punished as a foul anyway. Before the ball went into the net, the referee of the match had already blown the whistle and ruled a foul. Here, Okay and Mert hold each other first. There is very slight contact from the jersey to get into position. Both hands are on each other’s jerseys. While taking his place, Okay gets ahead of his opponent and scores a goal in a regular manner. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Bülent Yıldırım: Okay, there is a struggle, the struggle is mutual. There is no foul in this position. This violation occurred before the ball was in play. Therefore, if the referee had waited to blow the whistle and signaled a foul after the ball went into the net, it would have given VAR the opportunity to investigate. He would have stated that there was no violation and that the contact had occurred beforehand and would have awarded the goal. The referee’s misjudgment and early whistle came together. No foul. Goal. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Sea Shepherd: Not every pulling or holding is a violation. Okay, but don’t hold it against each other. The move in football. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
TRABZONSPOR WON TWO PENALTY
In the second half of the match, Trabzonspor won two penalties with a VAR warning.
In the 52nd minute of the match, a penalty decision was given for Trabzonspor after the position between Okay Yokuslu and Alexander Djiku.
Djiku, who could not time his move well in the penalty area, interfered with his opponent when the ball came to Okay Yokuşlu during the corner kick. After the warning from VAR, referee Oğuzhan Çakır showed the penalty point in favor of Trabzonspor.
Simon Banza took charge of the ball in the 59th minute and made the score 1-1.
Simon Banza, who received the ball in the penalty area in the 60th minute of the match, remained on the ground in his fight with Çağlar Söyüncü and waited for a penalty.
VAR referee Atilla Karaoğlan invited Oğuzhan Çakır to watch the position once again in the 64th minute, and Çakır, who examined the position on the monitor, showed the penalty point.
Simon Banza took charge once again and made the score 2-1 in the 67th minute.
FIRST PENALTY POSITION:
2. PENALTY POSITION:
Mustafa Çulcu: The penalty decision is correct, it is a position where the referee must make his decision on the field. (First position) (A Sports)
Mustafa Çulcu: Clear penalty. (Second position) If Oğuzhan Çakır is going to be a great referee, he needs to give this penalty on the field. (A Sports)
Fırat Aydınus: Trabzonspor’s penalties. It is debatable whether the first position was a penalty or not. Çağlar seems to have a theme in the second position, but there is this; VAR cannot intervene in either of these positions. These are decisions that need to be made on the field. (TV 8,5)
Erman Toroğlu: Since it is inside the field of play, the referee decides a penalty. The referee applies the rule. The decision to give a penalty is correct, but it is against my football logic. (EKOL TV)
Bahattin Duran: Correct. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Bülent Yıldırım: Correct. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Deniz Çoban: Look at the advertisement on the front of the Trabzonspor player’s jersey and the way he moves backwards. The jersey hangs in Mert Müldür’s hand. Today, 1 goal was cancelled, scored by Trabzonspor. I’m considering the retention pull there. I look at the whistles that the referee blew and didn’t blow, and I also look at this. By the standard of the referee on the field, this is a penalty. The player holds his jersey in his hand for 6-7 meters and reduces his speed towards the ball by applying sufficient force. VAR does not interfere with this, it is a separate issue. I would have found it right to call for a penalty. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
FENERBAHÇE’S PENALTY EXPECTATION
In the 83rd minute of the match, this time Fenerbahçe waited for a penalty, but the game continued. At this minute, the Yellow-dark blue team claimed that Trabzonspor’s Banza handled the ball in the penalty area.
Here is the moment:
Fırat Aydınus: In the position where Fenerbahçe was expecting a penalty, Nesyri did not foul his opponent, and then the ball touched Banza’s hand. This position is a penalty, but it is correct for VAR not to intervene because the contact is not visible from all angles. (TV 8,5)
Mustafa Çulcu: I see handball here, this is a penalty. En-Nesyri rises before Banza and does not step on the player’s shoulder. I’m confused, how does VAR not call? (A Sports)
Bülent Yıldırım: If this ball meets this hand, what is this position? It is a penalty. If this high arm reaches the opponent’s face, it is again a penalty. Banza hits and Çağlar’s nose moves. It is such an interesting position that both the ball meets the hand and the arm comes to Çağlar’s nose. This position is a penalty. VAR intervention was required. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Bahattin Duran: Does En-Nesyri climb up by stepping on the back of the Trabzonspor player, or is the player falling apart because of that pressure? When defenders feel hands on their shoulders, they move forward and open their arms to show that they are dispersed. This is a risky move. It is the referee who will make the final decision here. When the Trabzonspor player opens his arm, the ball comes into his hand in an unnatural way. The VAR referee should have continued to watch the referee and showed that the ball was unnaturally handled beforehand, and should also have shown En-Nesyri’s intervention. I think it’s a penalty. I think VAR should have intervened. There is an image that I can prove. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
Deniz Çoban: This position is a penalty in two ways. Uncontrolled intervention in both Banza’s handball and his opponent’s face. VAR must intervene. In this position, En-Nesyri also commits a foul, but the issue that needs to be applied here is the referee who will decide. You were going to invite the referee, he was going to come, you were going to show him how to play with your hand. There is also this, you can also look at this. The referee will watch and make the decision. (beIN SPORTS – TRİO)
