Video assistants must step in solely to correct blatantly wrong decisions or clear missed incidents European refereeing officials have stated.

Top refereeing officers from all 55 European national associations gathered last week alongside Uefa officials and an International Football Association Board representative to discuss recent law updates.

Participants noted that extended detailed reviews show VAR has strayed past its initial purpose.

When added to the laws in 2018 the system aimed for minimum interference with maximum benefit to cut unfairness from obvious mistakes or serious oversights on goals penalties direct reds and mistaken identity.

Uefa reported that the meeting led to agreement on returning to those core goals.

It was stressed that under protocol VAR should act only on clear and obvious errors meaning when a referee call is plainly wrong or a clear incident was missed Uefa noted in its release.

VAR is not intended to referee the match again but serves as key support while referees stay central to every choice.

Extended detailed reviews often signal that the on-field call was not clearly wrong and should thus be kept to a minimum.

Officials welcomed recent Ifab guidance on the mistaken identity rule introduced before the summer World Cup allowing a change if the wrong player receives a card for an opposition foul.

Switzerland forward Breel Embolo became the first sent off under the update after a disputed second yellow for simulation versus Argentina with Leandro Paredes initially cautioned before VAR stepped in.

Ifab made clear that VAR reviews cautions only to spot the actual offender not to reassess the incident itself.

There was full backing for recent changes to cut delays such as time caps on goal kicks throw-ins and subs plus fresh rules on pitch injuries and goalkeeper breaks.

This statement of direction appears encouraging.

Everyone recognizes a clear and obvious error such as the Luis Diaz offside goal for Liverpool in 2023 that VAR should have fixed though that stemmed from human mistake rather than the rules.

The issue remains that clear and obvious stays open to interpretation.

One manager may view a call as a major blunder while the opposing coach sees it as correct.

Much discussion has focused on decision times and whether exceeding a set limit should block any change.

In normal review that approach seems reasonable yet if multiple checks arise such as offside then handball then foul all must be examined if earlier ones could affect the outcome.

It appears Ifab seeks to refine an imperfect setup and deserves credit for the effort.

Still do not anticipate an end or even reduction in debates over specific rulings.