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 scored against Scotland (making it 0-1) but the goal was disallowed after a VAR on-field review for a foul by Vini (Brazil) in the build-up. The replay shows Vini attempting to steal the ball from a Scotland player: he stretched his leg in, won the ball, and the Scot then tripped over his outstretched leg. The contact was soft and ball-first. Under Law 12, a player who plays and wins the ball — with the opponent tripping over the legally-placed leg — is "playing the ball, not the man," which is a fair challenge, not a trip. Even if one judged it a soft foul, the VAR standard for overturning a goal is a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS error, and a marginal, soft leg-tangle in a ball-steal does not meet that bar. Disallowing the goal was inconsistent with both Law 12 and the high contact-threshold the referees have applied throughout this World Cup. WRONG DECISION, MEDIUM confidence — the goal should have stood.
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