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. 🙏
At 12' with Senegal leading Iraq 1-0, an Iraqi defender fouled a Senegal attacker near the penalty area during a breaking attack. VAR reviewed for a possible red card and a red was issued for DOGSO. The decision is correct: denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is assessed on four criteria — distance to goal, direction of play, the number and position of defenders, and the attacker's control of the ball. Here all four point to an obvious chance: the foul was near the box, the attacker was moving toward goal with control, and crucially there was no covering defender — the offender was the last man. With nothing between the attacker and the goalkeeper, the foul extinguished a clear scoring opportunity, which is a straight red. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH 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