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

Simulation

Referees must consider the extent of contact by the defender, who initiates the contact and whether the attacker has faked or exaggerated contact to gain an advantage.

If the referee makes the wrong call, it is usually the result of deception. Hence, in cases of potential simulation, VAR is usually answering one question: should a penalty be over-ruled?

  • VAR should recommend cancelling a penalty only where there is clear evidence that the attacker faked the contact or exaggerated its effect.
  • If there is any doubt as to who initiated the contact or about the intensity of that contact, VAR should not intervene.

The rationale

Simulation is judged on what did not happen. In every other penalty area scenario, the referee is assessing clear instances of contact. In this instance, they have to determine if there was any contact at all, whether the attacker sought contact or whether their reaction is in proportion to the level of contact.

When making their decision, the referee should place greater emphasis on the sequence of the two players' movements than the reaction itself.

What referees consider when making a decision

  • Does the defender touch the attacker, committing an offence?
  • Did the attacker initiate the contact?
  • Did the attacker fake or exaggerate the contact?

✅ When VAR should recommend cancelling a penalty

  • there is no contact between the two players. (Video 1)
  • the contact is clearly initiated by the attacker. (Video 2)
  • the attacker exaggerates the effect of a minor or light contact to fall. (Video 3)

Video 1 – Simulation: No contact

Video 2 – Simulation: Contact clearly initiated by attacker

Video 3 – Simulation: Attacker exaggerates contact

❌ When VAR should not intervene

  • there is doubt as to who initiated the contact.
  • there is doubt about the intensity of the contact.

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