OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct. You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right β not on the referee.
Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?
Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy β and we're grateful for it. The AI isn't infallible, and your verdict is exactly what improves it, case by case. You're helping build the VAR we all deserve. π
The referee showed a yellow card to the Scotland player (red kit) for a reckless high-boot challenge on a Haiti player (white kit) near the touchline. Reviewing the frames, the Scotland player does raise his foot to a concerning height with studs visible while both players contest the ball β that's undeniably reckless and deserving of a caution. However, to upgrade to a red card for serious foul play, the challenge must cross into excessive force or clearly endangering the opponent's safety: the frames show both players were genuinely going for a contested aerial ball, there is no visible uncontrolled lunge or dangerous follow-through, and the contact height, while elevated, sits at approximately knee level rather than clearly above. The yellow card is the correct punishment under IFAB Law 12 β reckless, yes; excessive force that endangers safety, not clearly established here.
Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to this verdict.
Push back on the verdict. Ask the AI 'why?', 'what about the elbow angle?', 'what's the precedent?' β and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month Β· WC 50 Β· GB 150.
Discussion