No Penalty: Former Referees Question Sivasspor’s Penalty!

In the 33rd week of the Süper Lig, Fenerbahçe drew 2-2 with Sivasspor away from home.

Fenerbahçe’s goals were scored by Fred and İrfan Can Kahveci, while Fode Koita and Rey Manaj scored for Sivasspor.

After the match, the positions of the match were evaluated by former referees Deniz Çoban, Bahattin Duran, and Bülent Yıldırım on beIN Sports’ Trio program.

The penalty position won by Sivasspor in the 90th minute

Bahattin Duran: There is a very slight contact, but for me, this contact is not one that requires the player to play poorly. It has no effect. The ball is clearly going out. Livakovic spread his legs. Livakovic’s foot meets Manaj’s foot on the ground. However, Livakovic did not come sliding in uncontrollably. There is only the meeting of the feet on the ground. Djiku‘s meeting Livakovic and Manaj’s foot is also not enough for a penalty. The most important point here is that the VAR intervention was very late. The offside situation was also mentioned. The position was examined very delicately. He called Cihan Aydın to the screen with the recommendation to watch. If the VAR room recommends the referee to watch, they will say, ‘We will show the moment of contact.’ The conclusion we will draw from here is that he called the referee for the intervention Livakovic made. If it had been an uncontrolled contact, Livakovic should have been shown a yellow card. The VAR intervention is not wrong, it’s very wrong.

Deniz Çoban: They show Livakovic’s move in Riva. A very wrong VAR intervention. We will evaluate it for whether there is an effect for the penalty. Both the defender coming from behind and the sliding goalkeeper only have contact with the opponent, but there is no intervention to restrict their movements. If the referee saw the contact and the VAR found it effective. If we say that the defender’s action disrupted his coordination, it is not taken into account. If Livakovic’s movement had been unbalanced, VAR could have intervened. By not showing a yellow card to Livakovic, VAR admitted to making a wrong intervention. Since he didn’t show it, Livakovic’s move is not uncontrolled, but careless. The referee’s evaluation is correct. There is nothing he didn’t see. VAR intervention is wrong. There is nothing resembling a penalty. You need to play this in motion. It stops and goes in slow motion. In slow motion, the impact seems to increase.

Bülent Yıldırım: There are multiple problems. Djiku has an attempt to disrupt the position. If this blow had been effective, if it had disrupted the opponent, it would have been a clear red card. If there had been a violation from the VAR perspective, it would have shown it. Djiku has an attempt. There is a slight contact, but there is no effective contact. VAR called for an intervention for the left foot. There is nothing disrupting the position. If Livakovic had shown the sole, I would say there could still be a violation. He made a natural intervention. After the contact, there is no sweeping of the opponent. VAR could not intervene in this position. I don’t know why it intervened. It’s a very wrong intervention. I find the calling process, the way of watching, and the decision of VAR wrong.