OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong (No Call). You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right — not on the referee.
Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?
Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy — 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. 🙏
In the 78th minute, with Scotland leading 1–0, Haiti attacked and the ball was played into the penalty area. A Scotland player made contact with the ball using their arm, which was extended away from their body — a position that makes the body unnaturally bigger under football's handball laws. Because the arm was not tucked in and the ball was heading toward goal, this should have been penalised as a handball and Haiti awarded a penalty kick. The referee allowed play to continue and, unusually for a FIFA match, no VAR review was conducted. Under the 2025/26 IFAB Laws, an accidental handball in an unnatural arm position inside the penalty area is still an offence — the play-on was the wrong call, and Haiti were denied what should have been a penalty at a crucial stage of the match.
Read the full OURVAR breakdown
Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to this verdict.
- Key factors that drove the AI's call
- Full IFAB law citations + frame references
- Vote, comment, and discuss with other fans
Ask OURVAR
Have a question about this verdict?
Push back on the verdict. Ask the AI 'why?', 'what about the elbow angle?', 'what's the precedent?' — and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discussion