Was the Goal Cancellation in the Konyaspor vs. Galatasaray Match Correct?

Is the Goal Cancellation Decision Correct? Referee Comments on Controversial Moments in the Konyaspor vs. Galatasaray Match

In the 2nd week of the Süper Lig, the cancellation of Icardi’s goal after a VAR review in the match where Galatasaray defeated Konyaspor 2-1 sparked a lot of discussion. Former referee Fırat Aydınus, a columnist for Hürriyet, and former referees on the Trio program aired on beIN SPORTS, evaluated the incident.

In the 2nd week of the Trendyol Süper Lig, Mauro Icardi’s goal in the 76th minute of Galatasaray’s 2-1 victory over Konyaspor was disallowed following a VAR review.

Galatasaray commented on the cancellation on social media, saying, “Icardi’s goal was canceled by VAR for a reason we don’t understand.” After the match, head coach Okan Buruk and club official İbrahim Hatipoğlu expressed their discontent with the decision.

Okan Buruk: “I think it was wrong for VAR to intervene. Since there wasn’t anything very clear, VAR’s intervention was a mistake, but that’s a different issue. Being a VAR referee is a different role. We are not worried. There is a change this season. Our federation president already mentioned that there will be penalties for mistakes. We trust Turkish referees. They should stay calm, make the right decisions, and do their best.”

İbrahim Hatipoğlu: “This decision to disallow the goal was completely irrational. It was a situation where VAR intervention wasn’t necessary. We watched it repeatedly. We still don’t understand how a goal was disallowed after VAR was called for a play where there was no physical contact, and our player clearly touched the ball. At the beginning of the season, the federation president said, ‘VAR referees have no room for error.’ Therefore, I am eagerly awaiting the president’s actions and thoughts regarding the VAR referee involved.”

COMMENTS FROM REFEREES

Former referee Fırat Aydınus, a columnist for Hürriyet, and former referees on the Trio program aired on beIN SPORTS, evaluated the incident.

Fırat Aydınus: “If a player places their foot in such a way that it prevents another player from playing the ball, and that player ends up kicking them, the foul is committed by the player who placed their foot in the way. Here, Torreira intended to play the ball and made an attempt to do so. He extended his foot and kicked the ball. Is this a situation where everyone would unanimously say it’s a foul and VAR should intervene? VAR referee Volkan Bayarslan, a former professional footballer like you, would you call this? In my opinion, play should have continued, and the goal should have stood. One thing is certain: VAR should not have intervened in this.”

Bahattin Duran (Trio):”Why does VAR intervene? To correct a clear and obvious error. The purpose of VAR is not to make the most accurate decision. We’ve been saying this for years, but it doesn’t always happen. The VAR intervention was wrong. You should only call for VAR if you have clear evidence. Torreira extended his foot and slightly touched the ball with the side of his foot. If he hit Aleksic’s foot instead of the ball, then there would be evidence, but that’s not the case here. The referee’s original decision to let play continue was correct. VAR should never intervene in these types of situations. We’ve watched it multiple times; it’s a very borderline call. If the referee had given a foul on the field, I would have accepted it, but his initial decision to continue play was more accurate.”

Bülent Yıldırım (Trio):”VAR should not intervene, there’s nothing to debate here. The referee’s decision to continue play was correct. There was no trip or impact from behind. Both players were trying to play the ball. The decision to continue play was the right one.”

Deniz Çoban (Trio): “The decision is debatable; whether it’s a foul or not depends on personal perspective. But there’s nothing for VAR to show as evidence. The VAR intervention was wrong. Continuing play was the better decision.”

—

OTHER CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS

7th minute – Adil Demirbağ vs. Mauro Icardi Incident

Fırat Aydınus: “Adil blocks Icardi’s running path. Both players exhibited unsportsmanlike behavior. The referee used his discretion and gave a warning. Rather than saying Icardi and the defense should have been given yellow cards, I respect the referee’s decision to just warn both players.”

Bülent Yıldırım: “Adil made contact with Icardi using his foot, and Icardi responded with a small trip. The offensive foul decision was correct. The referee tried to manage it through verbal communication. A general warning might have been more appropriate.”

Bahattin Duran: “The ball had already passed, and Icardi’s action warranted a yellow card. What he did was unsporting behavior. After blowing the whistle for the foul, you would harshly warn Icardi to send a message to everyone; in that case, I would accept it. If you showed me this incident without the time, I would say it’s a yellow card.”

Deniz Çoban:”The referee showed Icardi that he was aware of what he did by saying something like ‘Don’t do that.’ But he didn’t communicate this to the other players, so they didn’t learn that this was his limit.”

—

2nd minute – Abdülkerim Bardakcı’s foul on Ndao

Fırat Aydınus: “If the referee had given Abdülkerim a yellow card, no one would have argued

56th minute – Jevtovic’s Challenge on Barış Alper

Fırat Aydınus:”Put this still frame next to the reckless action. You’re right there, blowing the whistle, and the foul is clear as day. The fouled player falls. Everything is very obvious, and the positioning is good. If you’re giving this as a foul, it should also be a yellow card.”

Bülent Yıldırım:”A clear and undisputed foul. It’s a classic reckless foul, and a yellow card would have been the correct decision.”

Bahattin Duran:”I agree. It’s a reckless foul and deserves a yellow card.”

Deniz Çoban: “He overlooked the severity of the challenge. It’s a reckless foul. Yellow card.”

—

Was Galatasaray’s second goal offside?

Fırat Aydınus: “After Barış touches the ball, Torreira makes contact with it. But even if Torreira did touch the ball, he wasn’t offside when Barış touched it. When the first pass was made, Torreira had no impact on the play or any player. So, while it may technically look like offside, it’s not an offside situation that should be penalized.”

Bahattin Duran: “There was no offside.”

Bülent Yıldırım:”There’s no doubt about the goal.”

Deniz Çoban: “No offside.”

67th minute – Should Lucas Torreira have received a card for his foul?

Fırat Aydınus:”This happened off the ball. If the Konyaspor player had received the ball and turned left, they could have launched an attack. It was an off-the-ball foul, the ball hadn’t even arrived yet, so it’s clearly a yellow card.”

Bahattin Duran: “The referee let play continue, and I agree with the decision.”

Bülent Yıldırım: “The decision to play on was correct.”

—

67th minute – Was Adil Demirbağ’s challenge on Icardi a foul?

Bülent Yıldırım: “Was the ball in play? Yes. Adil’s challenge wasn’t fair. He crossed in and pushed the opponent. It was more severe than Abdülkerim’s foul. It was an off-the-ball foul and should have been a yellow card.”

Bahattin Duran:”There was no ball involved. Why is the player doing this? It wasn’t a legitimate charge.”

Deniz Çoban:”It was clearly a foul and a clear yellow card. The referee shouldn’t have missed this.”

—

70th minute – Was the yellow card for Kerem Demirbay’s foul correct, or should it have been more?

Bülent Yıldırım: “Kerem was aware of his timing mistake. If he had transferred his full power, it would have been a red card. But he held back. A clear yellow card.”

Bahattin Duran: “Yellow card. It wasn’t injurious, no power transfer, it wasn’t a tense leg, and he stepped with the side of his boot. Yellow card.”

Deniz Çoban:”He didn’t step with the studs or the sole; it was with the side of his foot. So, yellow card.”