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. 🙏
Turkey #11 hit a shot or cross that struck an Australia player's arm inside (or near) the penalty area. From the footage, the Australia player's arm was extended outward from the body at the moment of contact — not tucked in naturally — which under IFAB Law 12 constitutes a handball offence because the arm was in an unnatural position making the body bigger. The referee allowed play to continue without awarding a penalty, and no VAR check was made. By the strict IFAB standard, this should have been a penalty kick to Turkey, making the no-call a wrong decision. Turkey #11 was visibly furious with the call, as seen in the final frames.
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