UEFA.com works better on other browsers
For the best possible experience, we recommend using Chrome, Firefox or Microsoft Edge.
Penalties
Clear Line

Penalties

Penalty area incidents cover several common situations: handball, holding, pushing, shirt pulling, tripping, stepping on the foot, simulation, who played the ball first, and actions by goalkeepers. We examine what referees must consider in their decision-making, and where VAR should intervene if required.
Overview Handball Holding / pushing Tripping Stepping on foot Who played the ball? Goalkeepers Simulation Overview Handball Holding / pushing Tripping Stepping on foot Who played the ball? Goalkeepers Simulation

 Holding/pushing

In instances of potential pushing, holding or shirt pulling, the key issues facing officials are the impact on the opponent’s ability to play or reach the ball, the nature of the contact and whether the attacker exaggerates the effect of the contact.

  • VAR should recommend a penalty where a defender holds an opponent with both arms and is not attempting to play the ball or where a hold, push or pull clearly impacts the opponent’s movement or ability to play the ball.
  • VAR should recommend cancelling a penalty where there is light contact with no clear impact, where there is only momentary holding or where the attacker exaggerates the effect of contact to fall.
  • If it is difficult to assess the effect of the contact, VAR should not intervene.

The rationale

Players hold and push each other throughout a match and most of it is part of the game. What turns contact into an offence is its effect. The referee is not asking whether a defender touched the attacker but whether that contact stopped them reaching or playing the ball. That is why how long the hold lasted, whether one arm or two were used and how much the attacker’s movement changed all carry more weight than the contact itself.

What referees consider when making a decision

  • What was the impact on the attacker's ability to play the ball?
  • What was the defender's intention? Did they have a realistic opportunity to play the ball?
  • Was the holding momentary or persistent?
  • Were one or both arms used? Two-arm holding is an aggravating factor.
  • What was the intensity of the contact?
  • Did the attacker use this to exaggerate the effect of the contact or deliberately go to ground?

In situations where the defender does not use the arms (e.g. charge or shoulder charge), the referee’s assessment should normally prevail.

✅ When VAR should recommend a penalty

VAR reviews the footage and recommends the referee looks at the footage if:

  • a defender is holding an opponent with both arms and not attempting to play the ball.(Video 1, 2 & 3)
  • a defender holds or pushes an opponent from behind, with no intention or realistic possibility of playing the ball, while the attacker has control of the ball or a clear opportunity to play it. (Video 4)
  • a defender holds or pushes an opponent with one arm, but only where there is sufficient intensity to clearly impact the opponent’s movement or ability to play the ball. (Video 5)
  • a defender pulls an opponent and clearly impacts their movement or ability to play the ball. (Video 6)

Video 1 – Holding/pushing: Clear holding with two arms, no intention of playing the ball
Video 2 – Holding/pushing: Clear holding with two arms, no intention of playing the ball
Video 3 – Holding/pushing: Clear holding with two arms, no intention of playing the ball
Video 4 – Holding/pushing: Pushing from back with no chance to play ball and clear impact on opponent
Video 5 – Holding/pushing: One arm holding but clear impact on opponent
Video 6 – Holding/pushing: Clear shirt pull impacting opponent movement

✅ When VAR should recommend cancelling a penalty

The protocol works both ways, meaning the review can also show that a penalty should not stand if:

  • there is light contact with no clear impact on the attacker's ability to play the ball (Video 7)
  • there is only momentary holding (Video 8)
  • the attacker exaggerates the effect of contact to fall, or there is no clear relationship between the contact and the fall (Video 9)
Video 7 – Holding/pushing: Soft holding with no clear impact on opponent
Video 8 – Holding/pushing: Momentary holding
Video 9 – Holding/pushing: Player exaggerates holding to fall down

❌ When VAR should not intervene

  • It is difficult to assess the impact of holding/pushing/pulling on the attacker's movement
  • There is mutual holding and it is not possible to determine who initiated contact or committed the more punishable offence

A decision standing after a check is not VAR failing to act. It means VAR has found no clear and obvious error to correct.