The opening round of the 2026-2027 Süper Lig season is in the books, and – true to tradition – the spotlight has already shifted from the football to the referees. Former referee and columnist Deniz Çoban delivered a detailed breakdown of the officials’ performances, especially focusing on persistent misconceptions about the VAR system and several key decisions that shaped the week’s matches.
VAR: A System Still Not Understood
As soon as the league kicked off, the familiar debates over officiating resurfaced. This is hardly surprising in a country where football is often interpreted primarily through referees’ decisions rather than tactics, form or game plans. What Çoban finds far more worrying, however, is that nearly a decade after the introduction of VAR, basic principles of how the system operates are still not understood by a large part of the public.
The most popular conspiracy-flavoured question of the first week was this:
“Is the broadcaster deliberately delaying or withholding replays so that the VAR team cannot see the key incidents in time? Are replays being controlled to prevent the Video Assistant Referee from making the correct call?”
According to Çoban, this kind of speculation doesn’t even merit serious debate. The way VAR works is standardized worldwide. All camera feeds are transmitted directly and in real time, in raw form, to the VAR room. Technically, the broadcaster cannot filter, block or manipulate what the officials see.
In the VAR booth, the officiating team has independent access to every camera angle. Referees do not rely on the TV director’s chosen broadcast images. Instead, they use their own dedicated system and their own replay operators. The director does not “send” specific shots to the VAR; he only shapes what viewers see at home.
The process is straightforward: in the VAR room, there is the main Video Assistant Referee (VAR), an Assistant VAR (AVAR) and a Replay Operator (RO). When the VAR wants to check an incident, he asks the operator for the most suitable angle and controls the playback himself. This protocol has been in place for years. For Çoban, the fact that this basic, almost elementary structure is still the subject of fictional narratives and artificial controversies is nothing short of baffling.
Beşiktaş – Eyüpspor: Oğuzhan Çakır’ın Difficult Night
According to Çoban, one of the weakest refereeing displays of the first week came in the Beşiktaş-Eyüpspor clash, overseen by Oğuzhan Çakır. The central criticism was the lack of consistency in both foul recognition and card usage. Throughout the match, the referee failed to establish a clear standard: challenges that clearly required a yellow card went unpunished, while comparatively minor contacts were sanctioned with cards.
In the 13th minute, Djalo pulled his opponent by the hair. Çakır only awarded a foul, but for Çoban this was clearly insufficient. At minimum, the action deserved a yellow card for unsporting behavior. Letting such an obvious card offence slide undermines both authority and consistency.
Another critical moment came in the 50th minute. Yao stepped on Olaitan’s foot in a manner that should have resulted in a second yellow card and thus a dismissal. Instead, the referee allowed play to continue without the necessary disciplinary sanction, keeping a player on the pitch who, by the laws of the game, should have been sent off.
In the 63rd minute, after a foul on Olaitan, Costa deliberately blocked the free kick by positioning himself directly in front of the ball and preventing its quick execution. Çoban underlines that this is textbook behaviour for a second yellow card: delaying the restart in such a blatant way should lead to a dismissal. Again, Çakır refrained from the appropriate sanction.
Only in the 67th minute did Çakır correctly apply the law, sending off David Da Costa with a second yellow after his foul on Oh. While this individual decision was accurate, it did little to compensate for the series of earlier missed cards that had already damaged the competitive balance of the game.
Galatasaray – Çorum FK: Solid Start for Batuhan Kolak
The Galatasaray-Çorum FK tie, refereed by Batuhan Kolak, drew a considerably more positive review. Çoban notes that Kolak’s decision-making standard throughout the 90 minutes was acceptable and that the match did not place him under excessive pressure. Crucially, he got one of the game’s defining moments absolutely right by showing a straight red card at a key turning point.
Overall, Çoban believes Kolak has started the season well. The referee’s calm demeanor and coherent foul threshold allowed the game to flow while still maintaining control.
Two specific incidents stood out. In the 20th minute, Torreira stepped on Berat’s foot during a duel. Çoban categorizes this as a situation within the referee’s discretionary space. He judges the contact as non-injurious and considers Torreira’s foot contact with the opponent more as accidental than as a reckless stamp. In his view, this did not rise to the level of a card.
Far more clear-cut was the episode in the 69th minute, when Kyriridis committed a dangerous, injurious challenge on Yunus. Kolak immediately produced the red card, and Çoban fully supports this decision as entirely correct and in line with both the Laws of the Game and modern interpretations that prioritize player safety.
Gençlerbirliği – Fenerbahçe: A Poor Opening for Oğuzhan Aksu
In the Gençlerbirliği-Fenerbahçe encounter, Oğuzhan Aksu’s performance left much to be desired. Çoban argues that Aksu began the season with an unsuccessful display, particularly struggling with positioning. Poor movement and angles on the pitch made it harder for him to judge duels correctly and to maintain a consistent decision-making framework.
Two key incidents sparked debate. The first came in the 49th minute, when Mert Müldür rose for a header and a defender clearly swung his leg in a kicking motion nearby. Despite the obvious attempt to kick, Aksu waved play on. Çoban sees this as a blatant missed penalty: the defender’s action was punishable and should have led to a spot-kick.
The second controversial moment occurred in the 72nd minute. Talisca’s shot struck Goutas’ arm inside the area. Here, Çoban approves of the referee’s “play on” decision. In his assessment, the defender’s arm was in a natural position and the ball struck the hand accidentally, without any deliberate attempt to make the body unnaturally bigger. In modern handball interpretation, such situations are not supposed to result in a penalty, and Aksu, at least in this instance, applied the law correctly.
Konyaspor – Rizespor: Cihan Aydın Not Yet at Last Season’s Level
Cihan Aydın’s management of Konyaspor-Rizespor suggested, in Çoban’s eyes, that he has not yet reached full match sharpness. His card choices were inconsistent, and his foul standard fell below the bar he had set for himself last season.
One of the gravest criticisms concerned his approach to potential head injuries. On more than one occasion, when there was a risk of concussion or serious head trauma, Aydın allowed play to continue rather than immediately stopping the game to ensure the player’s safety. This goes against the modern priority of medical precaution in such situations.
Similarly, when the goalkeeper suffered an injury after an offence that clearly warranted a yellow card, Aydın astonishingly tried to keep the action going instead of stopping the game and disciplining the offender. For Çoban, this decision was both difficult to understand and incompatible with the principle of protecting goalkeepers inside the penalty area.
The most decisive error, according to Çoban, came in the dying minutes, when Rizespor were awarded a penalty. He disagrees strongly with this call. He could not identify any foul-worthy action from Muleka on his opponent. To him, the Rizespor player appeared to make the most of minimal contact, take a few steps and then throw himself to the ground. This behavior, in his view, falls short of what should be considered a penalty, yet the decision ultimately determined the outcome of the match.
Kasımpaşa – Trabzonspor: Gürcan Hasova Lets the Game Flow
In the Kasımpaşa-Trabzonspor fixture, referee Gürcan Hasova offered a contrasting example of how to manage a match with authority yet allow rhythm. He generally avoided whistling for minor contacts, which helped preserve the game’s tempo and made the contest more enjoyable as a spectacle. At the same time, his coherent decisions won the trust of the players on the pitch, reducing protest and tension.
Hasova’s approach illustrated a key modern refereeing principle: not every physical contact is a foul. By correctly distinguishing between fair challenges and illegal ones, he fostered a more dynamic game. According to Çoban, this type of performance not only benefits the image of refereeing but also encourages teams to focus more on football than on lobbying the official.
Why VAR Misconceptions Persist
The ongoing mistrust around VAR is not unique to this league, but Çoban suggests that local dynamics amplify it. Fans often perceive every controversial decision through the lens of club loyalties. When an offside line or a missed foul hurts their team, it is easier to blame opaque “systems” or the broadcaster than to accept human error or a different interpretation of the laws.
Another factor is the lack of clear, sustained communication about the technical side of VAR. Many viewers still believe the images that appear on their screens are identical to what the VAR team sees, in the same sequence and timing. In reality, the officials can jump between angles, slow motion and frame-by-frame review independently of the TV broadcast. Without understanding this, it becomes tempting to think that “if we didn’t see the replay, the VAR also didn’t.”
Misinformation, amplified by dramatic commentary and social media narratives, also plays its part. Isolated mistakes – which are inevitable in any sport – are used as “proof” of elaborate schemes. Yet systematic studies across major leagues show that, despite imperfections, VAR has increased the percentage of correct key decisions.
The Real Issue: Application, Not Technology
Çoban’s analysis implicitly points to a crucial distinction: the VAR system itself is not the real problem; how it is applied and how referees are trained and managed is where improvement is needed. A technically flawless setup cannot compensate for an inexperienced or indecisive referee, nor for inconsistent disciplinary standards.
In several of the week’s matches, the controversies had less to do with whether VAR images were available and more to do with referees’ judgement: missed second yellow cards, misread penalty situations, or failure to stop play for potential head injuries. These are primarily matters of interpretation, anticipation and match management.
To raise the overall standard, federations need to invest not only in equipment but in continuous education. This includes regular seminars on new interpretations, fitness and positioning work, and psychological preparation for dealing with pressure from players, coaches and supporters.
The Importance of Consistency and Communication
One recurring theme in Çoban’s week-one review is consistency. Players and coaches will tolerate the occasional mistake if they feel the referee is applying the same criteria to both teams throughout the match. When a similar tackle earns a yellow card in one instance and only a verbal warning in another, frustration quickly grows.
Clear on-field communication can mitigate this. When referees explain decisions briefly but confidently, it can reduce protests and prevent tempers from boiling over. A strong body language, decisive whistle use and coherent card management all help to establish authority.
From a broader perspective, public communication also matters. Explaining controversial VAR interventions after matches, clarifying interpretations of handball or serious foul play, and demystifying the technology can reduce the fertile ground on which conspiracy theories grow.
First Week Verdict: Familiar Debates, Mixed Performances
The first matchday of the new Süper Lig season brought with it exactly what many expected: passionate football, tense encounters and an immediate wave of complaints about officiating. Deniz Çoban’s breakdown shows a mixed picture: while some referees, like Batuhan Kolak and Gürcan Hasova, made solid starts, others, notably Oğuzhan Çakır, Oğuzhan Aksu and Cihan Aydın, drew criticism for inconsistency, positioning issues and decisive errors.
Above all, the debate around VAR shows no sign of calming down, largely because basic truths about the system’s operation remain overshadowed by artificial agendas and misinformed commentary. As the season progresses, the key question will be whether referees and the authorities can improve not just their decision-making, but also the way they explain and defend those decisions to a skeptical public.