How Cypriot Refereeing and VAR Are Back in the Spotlight
Refereeing has long been one of the most sensitive issues in Cypriot soccer, as is the case in every single country around the world. A single controversial decision is enough to spark reactions, statements, and mutual accusations. The president of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA), Haris Loizidis, is calling for more composure and fewer unfair attacks on Cypriot referees. He is right on several points. This, however, does not mean that the discussion should end there.
It is a fact that refereeing often becomes the easy scapegoat for a team’s failures. It’s more convenient to attribute a loss to a call than to missed opportunities, defensive mistakes, the coach’s decisions, or weaknesses in game strategy. Not every controversial decision can be labeled a scandal, nor can every negative result be blamed on the referees.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
There is, however, another side to the story. Referees cannot be held above criticism when they make serious mistakes, especially when these mistakes are repeated or create the impression that similar situations are handled with different standards. Mistakes are part of soccer. However, when there is the possibility of reviewing a play and new controversies still arise, the responsibility to restore trust becomes even greater.
This is precisely where the issue of VAR lies. The technology was introduced to limit serious refereeing errors and reinforce the sense of fairness. It was not designed to eliminate all disagreement, but to correct decisions in specific, decisive situations. However, when a play is reviewed multiple times and the final decision still raises reasonable questions, then the controversy cannot be attributed solely to the exaggerations of the teams and fans.
The admission by the president of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) that there are weaknesses in the VAR system is significant. It must, however, be accompanied by concrete solutions. Because if the problem lies in the assessment of plays, the interpretation of the rules, or the consistency of interventions, then that is where efforts to improve must be focused. The acknowledgment that mistakes were made is significant and clearly signals the federation’s commitment to resolving the serious issues that arise in nearly every match. However, this is not enough—just as the general assertion that results were not affected, without detailed documentation, is insufficient.
As the Cypriot soccer community, we must invest in specialized training for VAR referees, including analysis of actual game situations, simulations, and regular evaluations. We need consistent application of protocols, clear criteria for when and how VAR intervenes, and systematic recording of errors so that weaknesses can be identified and corrected. Publishing documented explanations for critical decisions could also help reduce suspicion.
The use of foreign referees in the VAR system can provide expertise and temporarily bolster confidence. However, it should not become a permanent solution. The goal must be to develop our own referees who have the training and experience to meet the demands of their role. This requires ongoing training, meritocracy, and evaluation based on objective criteria.
Of course, sports journalists, teams, and officials also bear responsibility. Criticism must be based on the rules and the facts, not used as a tool to justify every failure. Cypriot refereeing needs neither blind protection nor sweeping condemnation. VAR must be a tool for fairness. Respect for referees will grow when their decisions are convincing, mistakes are minimized, and evaluations are conducted consistently and transparently. Then refereeing will cease to be the go-to excuse for the unsuccessful and, at the same time, will no longer provide grounds for justified controversy.
