16.08.2026 12:10
Following the match in which Fenerbahçe lost 2-1 away to Gençlerbirliği in the Süper Lig, the beIN Trio team scrutinized the controversial positions of the game. During the critical moments commented on by former referees Seçim Demirel, Bülent Yıldırım, and Deniz Çoban, there was a difference of opinion on one position, while the incident where Mert Müldür remained on the ground was described as an 'unquestionable penalty'.
The Trio team commented on the controversial positions in the match where Fenerbahçe lost 2-1 to Gençlerbirliği away.
37TH MINUTE: IS THERE A FOUL ON GUENDOUZI BEFORE GENÇLERBİRLİĞİ'S GOAL?
In the 37th minute of the match, whether a foul was committed on Fenerbahçe's Guendouzi before the home team's goal was put under scrutiny. The Trio team agreed that the referee's decision to play on in this position was correct.
Seçim Demirel stated that the Gençlerbirliği player touched the ball, that the intervention on Guendouzi was not sufficient for a foul, and that the decision to play on was correct. Bülent Yıldırım also noted that there was contact to the knee while playing the ball, but it did not reach the level required for a foul, and he appreciated the referee's courageous decision to let the play continue.
Deniz Çoban, on the other hand, emphasized that the position was clean from his perspective and that he saw no problem with the goal.
49TH MINUTE: IS THE DECISION TO PLAY ON CORRECT IN THE POSITION WHERE MERT MÜLDÜR EXPECTED A PENALTY?
In the 49th minute of the match, regarding the position where Mert Müldür fell in the penalty area and expected a penalty, the former referees issued a joint opinion, arguing that the decision was incorrect.
Seçim Demirel stated that the defender made an uncontrolled intervention by swinging his foot, that contact occurred, and that the position should have been considered a penalty. Bülent Yıldırım spoke much more clearly, stating that the defender had to be careful and that, in his opinion, this was an indisputable penalty with no room for interpretation. Deniz Çoban also expressed that the player's action had no justification and that, as long as the ball was in play, this action was a clear penalty.
71ST MINUTE: DOES GOUTAS HANDLE THE BALL IN TALISCA'S SHOT?
In the 71st minute of the match, the issue of whether Goutas handled the ball in Talisca's shot and whether a penalty should have been awarded caused a difference of opinion at the Trio table.
Seçim Demirel argued that there was contact with the hand and that this arm position was unnatural. Demirel implied that a penalty should have been given, stating that the player saw the ball coming and, although he could have moved his hand away if he wanted, he did not. In contrast, Bülent Yıldırım stated that the player did not have time to move his hand away, so the decision to play on was correct and there was no need for a VAR intervention. Deniz Çoban also agreed with Yıldırım, saying that the arm was within the natural movement of the body and that the hand did not move towards the ball. Çoban added that he respects those who claim otherwise, that this is a matter of opinion, but he sided with the referee's decision and said "play on."
80TH MINUTE: THE POSITION WHERE OĞULCAN ÜLGÜN EXPECTED A PENALTY
In the final stages of the match, in the position where Oğulcan Ülgün expected a penalty in the 80th minute, the referee's decision to play on received full marks from the former referees.
Bülent Yıldırım stated that he had no opinion that Skriniar opened his elbow and struck the opponent, expressing respect for the referee's decision to play on. Seçim Demirel also emphasized that he saw no intervention requiring a foul in the position, especially that there was no deliberate elbow, and stated that the decision to play on was correct.