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. 🙏
Germany were awarded a clear penalty against Ecuador, but VAR overturned it and gave Ecuador a free kick instead, because Germany's Sané had fouled an Ecuador player in the build-up roughly 10-15 seconds earlier. The penalty itself being clear is irrelevant: under the VAR protocol, an attacking-team foul that occurs within the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) — the continuous possession phase that leads to a penalty or goal — is brought back, and the foul takes precedence over whatever the attacking team subsequently won. The APP is defined by continuous possession, not by elapsed time, so a 10-15s unbroken German possession from Sané's foul to the penalty keeps the foul inside the reviewable window. Because Sané committed a genuine foul and Germany retained possession throughout, VAR correctly rescinded the penalty and awarded Ecuador the free kick at the original offence. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence. (This is the mirror of the Argentina goal case: same APP rule, but there the build-up contact was NOT a foul so the goal stood; here it WAS a foul so the penalty is wiped.)
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