Fırat Aydinus: In the 72nd minute, Jackson Porozo’s move towards Ferdi Kadıoğlu near the Kasımpaşa penalty area line is a foul, but it is not a penalty because the projection of the contact was outside the penalty area.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): The referee was about to call a foul when he suddenly changed his decision. He gave up as the whistle went to his mouth.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): The referee must have heard someone say “continue”.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): This position is a foul. It is necessary to identify the point of contact. Football According to the game rules, this means jumping on the opponent, he jumped before the ball arrived. A clear foul. But this position is out. A free kick should have been given.
n
Bahattin Duran (beIN Trio): This position is a foul. We saw it while watching it live. Kasımpaşalı touches the ball, but first he breaks Ferdi. We also saw from the angles that the place where the movement took place was outside the penalty area. A foul was missed.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): I have no doubt about foul play. He dropped his opponent. The position was a clear foul. If the referee had seen his own foul and called a penalty, intervention from VAR would have been required. The first blow is outside the penalty area.
n
“The goal should have been disallowed”
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): The referee drew the line when he saw the Fenerbahçe players next to the dam. He said don’t come closer than 1 meter.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): When 3 or more players form a barrage, UEFA, FIFA and IFAB put a distance of 1 meter to prevent it, as conflict arises a lot. They finished the mess here.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): The rule is that if there are players closer than 1 meter to the threshold when the ball is kicked, that goal is cancelled. Even if it has no effect on the goal, if it comes closer than 1 meter, that goal must be cancelled. The rule was made so that the dam would not be broken, but a limit was drawn. The referee creates his own problems. However, is the line drawn by the referee 1 meter? Closer. The goalkeeper comes out of the goal and says this is not 1 meter. The referee says replace it. What is Aytaç doing, Aytaç says the same thing, he says this place is not 1 meter. Referee said I made a mistake, draw again. Don’t make your problem bigger. The referee did not listen to the warnings. While Mert Hakan is coming, there is not 1 meter distance. Fenerbahçe players are less than 1 meter from the dam. This goal must be disallowed and an indirect free kick is required. Even if the Fenerbahçe player stops at half a meter rather than 1 meter, the result is a goal. That’s how the rule was made. The referee set up the problem. If the referee had drawn the line at 1 meter… According to the football game rules, this goal should be cancelled. Because, when the ball is kicked, Fenerbahçe players are less than 1 meter away from the 4-man dam.
nn
Bahattin Duran (beIN Trio): Let me go in reverse. It’s not 1 meter. The referee drew the line. According to the referee, it is 1 meter. It’s not 1 meter, but the referee drew it. The dark blue player is coming, the goal does not need to be cancelled. There is a referee error here. I am a player, the referee drew the line at 1 meter and I stood there. Why is the goal canceled? The referee drew the line at me. The goal does not need to be canceled. The referee makes the mistake from the beginning. Despite this, it would be okay if the Fenerbahce player crossed the line and took one step.
n
“Undisputed penalty for Fall’s intervention against Oosterwolde”
n
Fırat Aydinus: The projection of the first contact of Mamadou Fall’s foul against Jayden Oosterwolde in the 82nd minute is in the penalty area. A penalty should have been awarded in this position.
n
Bahattin Duran (beIN Trio): The yellow card is very clear. A foul was called. It is wrong for VAR not to step in. From where? Fall hit Oosterwolde’s knee clearly with his knee. Oosterwolde’s knee changed shape. This is a foul first, the foul he made with his knee, and then it continues. The penalty for the foul is inside the line. VAR intervention is required. VAR must detect and report that he is in the penalty area. Fenerbahçe should have taken a penalty.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): A penalty should have been awarded.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): The VAR referee does not intervene in the position within the penalty area. A clear, undisputed penalty.
n
“Why does the ball break?”
n
Fırat Aydınus: 90+1. As for the position that took place in the minute and determined the fate of the match… I do not argue with whoever says “The football player does not have contact with the ball with any part of his body”. But here there is a break in the ball, and the source of this break can only be seen from the behind-the-goal camera. In other camera angles, it is not clear where this break occurs. When the football player from Kasımpaşa saw the ball coming from a distance and tried to make contact with his head but could not, it seems that the ball made contact with the opened arm. But this image is not enough as 100 percent clear evidence for Erkan Engin in VAR to call the referee Cihan Aydın to the monitor. This was a position that the referee would decide and evaluate on the field.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): It’s like he’s touching something above the fist. If he is touching, he is touching Yunus Emre’s fist.
n
Bahattin Duran (beIN Trio): I think the ball touched his left hand. There is a breaking of the ball, clearly. The ball touches Yunus Emre’s fingers.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): The ball breaks, we try to find out what broke the ball. If he played, he played with his arm.
n
Bahattin Duran (beIN Trio): This is the wrong angle that a referee in a VAR room can show to the referee. If you show me this sticky hand, I call it a penalty. I’m looking forward to the recordings on Tuesday. This position should be played in normal shooting. It has never been played in normal shooting. I feel it touching the fingers and bones of his left hand. However, I feel, I cannot prove it. Wouldn’t Çağlar object if the ball came to the open arm? Çağlar turns to the assistant and says corner. This position is corner. VAR intervention is wrong. I cannot say it was a clear penalty. I have nothing to prove. My feeling makes me think it’s coming to his left hand.
n
Sea Shepherd (beIN Trio): VAR shows the referee touching his fist on his left hand. It is never acceptable for VAR to interfere in a place where we talk about so much microsurgery, 9 angles, what is here, how. VAR intervention is wrong. Even if the ball touches the hand, it is relative to whether the player is in a natural position. Subjective. VAR intervention is wrong. After the referee came and watched, he called it a penalty. The referee also made his comment. I can’t say it’s right, it’s also wrong. I don’t understand in what way VAR proves that it comes to the left hand. It is not obvious that the ball is in the hand while moving. This cannot be subject to VAR intervention.
n
Bülent Yıldırım (beIN Trio): It is obvious that this ball broke somewhere. You call it a penalty with a photo. This ball broke somewhere, was it from the hair, the left hand finger, or did it rub against the right arm? I cannot prove it. The referee on the field must decide. The angle choice he shows is completely wrong. Everyone should be a video referee in their own league, brother. What incident is this? TFF cannot stand these guys, I’m saying it sincerely.
nn
n
2024-02-25 07:33:00
#referees #evaluated #FenerbahçeKasımpaşa #match #undisputed #penalty #Oosterwolde #VAR #intervention #penalty #awarded #wrong
