BeIN Sports commentators Lale Orta, Deniz Çoban and Bülent Yıldırım discussed the controversial positions of the Fenerbahçe-Kayserispor match in the Trio program.
After Gustavo Campanharo’s intervention with the ball in the penalty area in the 30th minute, referee Cüneyt Çakır watched the position again with a VAR warning and showed the penalty spot. Is the penalty decision correct?
Tulip Medium: I think of it as hand-to-hand play. When we look at the position once again, there must be a symmetry on the way out. He plays the ball with his arm. Since it is not in a natural position, it takes it to a position that will create an advantage for itself. The penalty decision is correct.
Sea Shepherd: There has been a text change in the game rules book. If the hand goes towards the ball, if the move is deliberate, it will be penalized. Would the hand be there in the nature of the game of football? There can be many different interpretations here. It can be said that he is protecting his face. None of this happens in the nature of the game of football. This is a violation. There’s no reason for your hand to be there. A clear penalty.
Bulent Yildirim: Since the ball directly touches the hand from a distance, the penalty decision made here seems correct. No yellow card required.
Is there a violation in İrfan Can’s penalty shootout in the 33rd minute?
Sea Shepherd: The ball bounces off the post. It comes on, it doesn’t move. İrfan Can does not move the ball. There are also players who took one step into the penalty area when the ball was kicked. The referee cannot make such fine calculations. This is negligible. What does the rule say? It is repeated if players from both teams enter the penalty area. The video referee is also unable to intervene. This penalty shot must be repeated. However, minimal violations are ignored. I can’t say anything for him.
Tulip Medium: If the shooter and shooter have no violation, it is not repeated. It can be developed in the direction of not breaking the rules sometimes. When you look at the book, it needs repetition. But it is not repeated in practice.
Bulent Yildirim: According to the Var protocol, the size is certain. When the kicker commits a violation, he intervenes if he hits before he strikes. The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) can intervene if the early entrant tries to score. The game rules book needs a change.
Does Ramadan interfere with Berisha in 90+6? Is the penalty decision correct?
Sea Shepherd: Holding is not a violation. The hold should restrict the player’s movements. Last season, in the Konyaspor-Beşiktaş match, Vida was kept out of the jersey and extended to the form. In the training held that week, they said that this is the rule. If you see the extension of the jersey in the images, you should tell the referee. There is also a jersey kept here. And the Video Assistant Referee warns. Another issue is discussed. Is it easy or difficult: But there is a clear rule given to the referees. Mete Kalkavan said he saw this too. Cüneyt Çakır is screened by the actor. It’s normal not to see. I say the decision is correct.
Tulip Medium: I think it’s absolutely true. He pulls not only the jersey, but also the arm. Cüneyt Çakır also awaited the VAR intervention. He watched and made the right decision.
Bulent Yildirim: After the match, Hodja Hikmet complained about the time in his statement. Two players of Kayserispor change in the 91st minute. 40-43 seconds. We pocketed it. Then there is an injury at 93.50. One minute 10 seconds. It’s a penalty like 95.36. The point where the penalty occurred was 35-36 seconds, which we had 1 minute and 10 seconds. Penalty is awarded in 97 reviews. Penalty is used in 98. There is no problem with time. Here, both the jersey hold and the back pull; Ramazan made an unnecessary and risky move. The position is clear. A penalty decision that needs VAR intervention.
–
