OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct. 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. 🙏
Referee Turpin correctly ordered a retake of Kane's penalty. The reason was NOT goalkeeper encroachment (as the AI incorrectly diagnosed) — the Croatia goalkeeper stayed on the line. The retake was triggered by a Croatia outfield defender entering the penalty area before the ball was kicked, visible in the wide pre-kick frame. Under Law 14, when a defender (other than the GK) encroaches and the kick is saved or missed, the retake is mandatory. The GK saved Kane's first attempt; the encroachment by a teammate made the save void in the eyes of the Laws; Kane then converted the retake. The on-field decision (retake) was correct — the AI had the right OUTCOME but reasoned from the wrong cause.
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