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. 🙏
From a set-piece into a crowded Norway vs France penalty area, a France defender tripped a Norway attacker, and the referee pointed to the spot. VAR reviewed the penalty and confirmed it. The decision is correct: a trip is one of the clearest direct-free-kick offences under Law 12, and unlike the mutual grappling that clutters most corners, it is a one-sided foul — the defender took the attacker's legs. Inside the penalty area, a trip is a penalty under Law 14. With the on-field referee awarding it and VAR confirming on review, two independent layers of officiating reached the same conclusion. 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