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. 🙏
Deep in stoppage time of Uruguay vs Spain, a Uruguay player went down in the box under a challenge from Spain's Dani Olmo and claimed a penalty. The referee waved play on and VAR did not intervene. The decision is correct. Olmo did initiate some contact, but the contact was minimal and not enough to legitimately bring the attacker down — who fell very easily, looking to win the penalty. A penalty requires contact that is both a foul and the actual cause of the fall; minimal contact followed by an exaggerated tumble is embellishment, not a foul. Because genuine (if slight) contact existed, waving play on is the correct middle ground — neither a soft penalty nor a harsh simulation booking. VAR correctly stayed out: minimal contact with an easy fall is not the clear-and-obvious foul required to overturn a wave-on. CORRECT NO-CALL, MEDIUM confidence — a defensible call on a genuine 50/50, consistent with the high contact threshold applied across this tournament.
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