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. 🙏
Iran broke out on a counter-attack from their own half around the 66th minute. An Iran attacker was advancing with the ball through midfield with open space ahead and no covering defender between him and the Belgian goalkeeper when Belgium #26 caught up and fouled him to stop the move. The referee correctly identified this as a DOGSO offence — denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity — and showed the straight red card. The location (around the centre circle) is the traditional "marginal" zone for DOGSO, but under the modern IFAB criteria (refined for 2026/27 to formally include "location and number of defenders and attackers"), a counter-attacker with control, open space, and no covering defender meets DOGSO from well outside the penalty area. The dismissal stands; restart with a direct free kick to Iran from the point of the foul.
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