After the heavy 6-0 defeat against Aston Villa, Fenerbahçe licked its wounds by defeating Alanyaspor 3-0 in the league. The yellow-dark blue team kept control of the game throughout the match, created many positions in the opponent's goal and did not make any mistakes in the week Galatasaray won. However, what remained from this match was not just the three points and the game played. The goal scored by İrfan Can Kahveci at the beginning of the second half and canceled by VAR intervention was the main controversy that prevented the match.
As expected, Fenerbahçe started the game by possessing the ball. Failing to take advantage of an important opportunity with Lukaku, the yellow-dark blue team missed the chance to take the lead with Greenwood's weak kick from the penalty won by Levent Mercan. Despite this, Fenerbahçe, which did not break away from game discipline, went to the locker room ahead 1-0 with Lukaku's goal after Levent Mercan's cross in the 40th minute. The defensive success of the yellow-dark blue team, who completed the first half with 65 percent possession and 2.68 goal expectation, was as remarkable as their offensive performance. In the first 45 minutes, Alanyaspor could only touch the ball three times in the Fenerbahçe penalty area and could not shoot accurately.
Fenerbahçe started the second half with more enthusiasm and scored a goal in the first minutes with İrfan Can Kahveci to double the difference. However, after the referee's VAR review, the goal was deemed invalid. The reason was the foul committed by Kante before the goal. Of course, it can be discussed whether Kante's intervention was a foul or not. But that wasn't the point. The real issue is to what point VAR can go back and intervene and how the initial phase of the attack should be evaluated in this position.
When we look at the beginning of the position, we see that Alanyaspor's Baran Ali remained on the ground right in front of the referee. The referee did not stop the game and the fight continued. Moreover, the ball was still in Alanyaspor's possession at this time. The opposing player made a bad pass in the ongoing action and lost the ball, and Fenerbahce started to attack. The yellow-dark blue team also scored at the end of this attack. In other words, the referee continued the game in the position in front of him; When the subsequent attack resulted in a goal, VAR stepped in and the goal was canceled due to Kante's intervention in the previous part of the game.
This is exactly where the point to be discussed begins. Comments on whether Kante's move was a foul or not aside, VAR's reason for intervening in this position and the limits of the review should be clarified. Because in the VAR protocol, where the attack start phase begins is decisive in terms of whether an intervention before this phase can form the basis for goal cancellation. My objection is to this point. How was the connection established between the intervention that took place when the Alanyaspor player had not yet made the pass and the Fenerbahçe attack that started after the ball was lost? Was a position where the referee decided to continue considered within the scope of the initial phase of the attack that resulted in a goal? Or were the limits of the review interpreted differently in this position?
The answers to these questions are important not only for Fenerbahçe, but also for the consistency of referee decisions. The on-field referee's decision to continue play does not in itself make VAR intervention impossible. However, every foul claim before every goal should not automatically lead to the goal being cancelled. What is decisive here is how the position is classified within the framework of the rules and the reason for the VAR review. Therefore, the only way to discuss the debate is "Did Kante commit a foul or not?" To reduce it to the question would be to miss the real issue.
Fenerbahçe continued its dominance after the canceled goal. Kerem Aktürkoğlu, who entered the game later, doubled the difference in the 71st minute, and Vedat Muriqi determined the score in the 87th minute. The yellow-dark blue team kept their opponent away from the goal throughout the match and achieved a 3-0 victory. However, the result on the field does not eliminate the need to clarify the controversial decision.
Now all eyes are on the Central Referee Board. There are examples in the UK where PGMOL has issued statements about decisions following similar controversial positions. So, will MHK explain to the public why this position resulted in the goal being canceled? Before defending or criticizing the referees' decisions, it is necessary to know which rule is applied and how. Especially when it comes to a system like VAR, which can directly affect the outcome of the match...
