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. 🙏
The referee blew the final whistle at approximately 7 minutes and 59 seconds of added time, with a Saudi Arabia player in green running free on a counter-attack and apparently no Uruguayan defenders behind him. The indicated added time was 7 minutes, and the scoreboard clock shows the whistle came just under 8 minutes in — so numerically the referee did play beyond the indicated minimum. However, under Law 7, if additional stoppages occurred *within* the added time period (injuries, VAR checks, time-wasting) those must be added on top of the original 7 minutes, potentially pushing the true minimum beyond 8 minutes. If that was the case here, blowing the whistle when Saudi Arabia had a clear counter-attacking opportunity was incorrect — the referee is obliged to allow the full minimum duration to be played, regardless of the scoreline or game situation. The IFAB-correct approach would have been to allow that attack to play out before calling 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