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 dying seconds of this World Cup group-stage draw (Belgium 1–1 Egypt, 91st minute), Egypt's #25 drove into the penalty area and was brought down by Belgium's #5. The frames show Belgium #5's arm wrapping across Egypt #25's upper body from behind — classic holding contact — at a point when the ball had already moved past both players, meaning there was no legitimate challenge for the ball happening. Egypt #25's fall is consistent with losing balance from that contact, not a dive. The referee let play continue and VAR did not intervene, but under IFAB Law 12 this type of hold from behind is a direct free kick offence, and if it occurred inside the penalty area (which the camera angle strongly suggests), it should have been a penalty to Egypt. The no-call — and VAR's failure to flag it — appears to be an error, denying Egypt a potential match-winning penalty in stoppage time.
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