Video assistant referees should only be used to change "blatantly incorrect" decisions and clear missed incidents, say European refereeing officials.

Chief refereeing officers from all 55 European national football associations met last week with Uefa refereeing officials and a representative from the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to address recent changes to the game's laws.

Attendees said "lengthy, microscopic reviews" indicate VAR has gone beyond its original scope.

When VAR was added to the laws of the game in 2018 by football's rulemakers Ifab, its "philosophy" was "minimum interference - maximum benefit", with the intention of reducing "unfairness caused by clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents" relating to goals, penalties, direct red cards and mistaken identity.

UEFA said that at its recent meeting, refereeing bosses agreed a return to those original aims is needed.

"It was reiterated that, in accordance with protocol, VAR must only intervene in situations of 'clear and obvious' error, ie. when a referee decision is blatantly incorrect or when the referee has missed a clear incident," Uefa said in a statement.

"VAR is not meant to re-referee the game; it is an essential support to the referees, who must remain at the centre of all decision-making.

"Lengthy, microscoping reviews are often a symptom revealing that the decision on the field was not clearly and obviously incorrect, and should therefore be limited."

Officials acknowledged recent clarification from IFAB around the correct interpretation of the "mistaken identity" rule introduced before this summer's World Cup, which says that if a player is booked or sent off but the foul was committed by the opposition team, the decision can be changed.

Switzerland's Breel Embolo was the first player to be sent off as a result of the new law following a controversial second yellow card for simulation against Argentina. Leandro Paredes originally received a yellow card for his challenge before VAR intervened.

IFAB clarified that VAR can only review cautions to "identify the player who committed the offence that was penalised, not to review or alter the offence".

There was also "unanimous support" for recent rule changes designed to reduce unnecessary delays, including time limits on goal-kicks, throw-ins and substitutions, and new regulations around on-field injuries and goalkeeper tactical timeouts.

Analysis

By Simon Stone, Chief football news reporter

This statement of intent sounds positive.

We all know what a 'clear and obvious error' is right? Luis Diaz's offside goal that wasn't for Liverpool in 2023 – a decision VAR should definitely have overturned. It wasn't, but that was down to human error not protocol.

The problem is 'clear and obvious' is a subjective phrase.

What one manager might think was the worst mistake ever, his counterpart in the other dugout might feel was a fair call.

There has been a lot of debate around the amount of time taken to make decisions and if the time period passes a certain threshold, there should be no change.

In the cold light of day, that seems sensible. But what if it is three decisions – starting with an offside, then a potential handball, before finally a foul – that might be certain. If the potential offside or handball could rule out the foul, they have to be looked at as well surely?

It feels as though Ifab is trying to improve an imperfect situation and it should be applauded for that.

Just don't expect it to end – or even minimise – the arguments around the merits of individual decisions.