OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct (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. 🙏
A Senegalese attacker came into contact with a Norwegian defender and went to ground; Senegal claimed a penalty kick. The on-field referee waved play on. VAR ran the standard PK-claim check and did not recommend intervention. From the broadcast angles available, the contact reads as fair shoulder-to-shoulder body-jostling with arm involvement consistent with running balance — not a clear foul-from-behind or a push. Under Law 12, the attacker going to ground is not by itself evidence of a foul; the action of the defender is what determines the call. The no-call is consistent with both the legal merits of the contact and the broader WC2026 officiating trend toward higher PK thresholds — letting borderline body contests resolve without a whistle rather than rewarding contact-and-fall with a penalty. CORRECT NO-CALL, MEDIUM confidence.
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