OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong. 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. 🙏
Brazil #9 — identified by the user's context as Cunha — touches the ball but then appears to follow through with his kicking leg into the Haiti defender, who goes to the ground as a direct result. The ball immediately moves to a team-mate who scores, all within the same passage of play. Under Law 12, kicking an opponent carelessly is a foul even if the ball was also played, and the referee and VAR should have disallowed the goal and awarded Haiti a free kick. The goal being allowed represents a missed call — the contact shown in the frames goes beyond the incidental contact of normal play and appears sufficient for a clear and obvious error review at a tournament where VAR is highly active.
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