15.09.2025 09:00
After the match played between Fenerbahçe and Trabzonspor, the beIN Trio team evaluated the decisions made by referee Ozan Ergün. The commentators argued that the disallowed goal by Trabzonspor in the 11th minute was a "wrong decision."
```html
In the 5th week of the Super League, Fenerbahçe hosted Trabzonspor in a crucial match at home. Fenerbahçe left the match played at Chobani Stadium with a 1-0 victory. After the big match, the decisions made by referee Ozan Ergün were discussed on the beIN Trio program that aired.
Was the VAR intervention correct for Trabzonspor's disallowed goal in the 11th minute?
Bahattin Duran: If this position was taken by Onuachu with a clear and obvious foul, it is the beginning phase of the attack. If this is a foul and it is clear and obvious, it is the beginning phase of the attack. Let me give you my direct answer. The VAR intervention in this position is not wrong, it is very wrong. VAR should not have intervened in this position at all. If it was a reckless action, VAR could have intervened. If it was a serious foul play, VAR could have intervened. This position is neither a violent action nor a foul. Onuachu's arms are natural in this position.
Deniz Çoban: There is no need to talk extensively. If the referee had blown the whistle at the moment this position occurred, we wouldn't even bring it to the screen. You respect those who call it a foul. You also respect those who say it is not. There is a very fundamental rule in VAR's principles. There should be a reckless intervention here. There is no reckless intervention here. Therefore, it is an open and incorrect VAR intervention.
Bülent Yıldırım: The Fenerbahçe player is not taking control. He is just clearing the ball, so this is the beginning phase of the attack. Let me say from the start. The VAR intervention here is wrong. If the arm was used recklessly, if there was a clear violation here, only then would it be a position that could be intervened. A referee who sees this on the field could have called it a careless foul. However, for VAR to intervene, was this a clear violation? The answer to that question is no. Unfortunately, the video referee has intervened here like the referee managing the match. I will conclude by stating that I find the intervention unnecessary.
Was the VAR intervention correct for Okay Yokuşlu's red card in the 17th minute?
"THE TWIST IN THE ANKLE IS TERRIBLE"
Bülent Yıldırım: The referee made a serious mistake regarding the severity of the foul. It is clearly serious foul play, the speed is very high, it comes with the sole. At the moment of contact, Okay said, 'Oh no, this is bad.' All the criteria for serious foul play are present. The sole has lifted from the ground, it has come to the ankle, the twist in the ankle is terrible. An exemplary VAR intervention. All angles show the same thing. An exemplary VAR intervention.
"CLEAR RED CARD"
Bahattin Duran: A very clear and obvious red card. I would have expected the referee to evaluate this on the field. Okay's intention may be to play the ball, but he is taking a big risk by showing the sole and sliding. Even if he played the ball, he would still be responsible for his actions. Kerem's ruthless action on Okay's ankle area also causes a distortion in shape. A clear and obvious red card. The VAR intervention is one hundred percent correct. Everything is there, there is evidence. The VAR intervention and the referee's red card are correct. Savic should have received a yellow card for his subsequent protest.
"IT SHOULD BE A RED CARD"
Deniz Çoban: For Savic's protest, at least a yellow card should be given; if he thinks it is humiliating, it should be a red card. The referee should protect his authority on the field; he should have at least seen a yellow card. He took his eyes off Savic.
```