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. 🙏
Iran were awarded a penalty against Egypt, given on field and confirmed by VAR. In the build-up, an Egypt player (No. 6, Abdelmonem) was in possession in his own box; an Iran player got a touch on the ball, and the Egyptian — continuing his motion, by his own account without noticing — kicked the Iranian on the foot. The penalty is soft but correct. Under Law 12, kicking an opponent carelessly is a direct-free-kick offence, and "careless" explicitly covers acting without sufficient attention — i.e. kicking him without meaning to. Intent is not required, and being the player in possession does not grant immunity from fouling the challenger. A careless kick on an opponent inside the penalty area is a penalty. The contact was minimal, so a stricter referee could have treated it as trifling and waved it on — but the on-field referee judged it a foul and VAR confirmed, which places it on the correct, if soft, side of the line. CORRECT DECISION, MEDIUM 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