The reported guidance draws a firm line between objective mistakes and subjective judgement. VAR can correct the wrong player being identified or review an incorrectly issued second yellow card, but it will not become a replay service for every contested fall.
That leaves the original referee with greater responsibility. Whether contact was enough to bring down an attacker, or whether a player made too much of it, will generally remain an on-field decision.
The approach also protects the principle that VAR should correct clear errors rather than expand the number of decisions under review. Simulation is difficult to judge from isolated images, particularly when speed, balance and contact all affect the outcome.
The expanded World Cup protocol offered a more interventionist model. The report cites a disputed Argentina-Switzerland incident involving Breel Embolo and Leandro Paredes, where video review changed the disciplinary picture after the referee’s initial decision.
A second cited example came from United States-Paraguay, involving Tim Ream and Miguel Almirón. The review reportedly shifted the caution from the defender to the attacker for simulation.
Those incidents showed the appeal of a broader system: supporters could see a clear benefit when video appeared to correct the wrong player. They also demonstrated the risk. Every review creates another layer of debate over intent, contact and interpretation.
UEFA’s reported position should bring fewer stoppages and a more predictable VAR role. Players may still be punished for simulation, but the process will depend primarily on the referee recognising it during live play.
The next storyline will come when a major European knockout tie produces a controversial dive. That decision will test whether UEFA’s restraint improves consistency-or leaves referees exposed when a review might have changed the outcome.