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. 🙏
Argentina's #10 was correctly penalised for a foul on the Algeria player, but the referee's decision to give no card at all was incorrect under IFAB Law 12. The frames show the Argentina player's arm making contact with the Algeria opponent's upper body and head area at a raised position, with sufficient force to send the Algeria player to the ground. Even accepting that the contact was accidental, swinging an arm into an opponent's head region during a challenge constitutes reckless play, which under Law 12 mandates at minimum a yellow card regardless of intent. VAR reviewed the incident and declined to escalate to a red card — that specific decision is within the defensible range given the borderline force involved and the accidental nature of the contact — but the complete absence of any disciplinary action for a reckless challenge at head height is the missed call here. The correct outcome was a foul plus a yellow card to Argentina #10, with the possibility of upgrade to red after VAR review.
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