1 / 3 today
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #145

Jordan vs Argentina

FIFA World Cup · 2025/2026 · 2026-06-27 · 1-3

Correct high confidence
Penalty (push/hold in box)
🗳️ Community verdict — vote now 5 votes needed for verdict

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. 🙏

Incident
Penalty (push/hold in box)
Law cited
Law 12 — Fouls and Misconduct. "Playing in a dangerous manner"
Recommended action
Penalty to Jordan (correct)
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
Penalty awarded to Jordan against Argentina for a high foot in the penalty area, confirmed after a VAR on-field review (OFR)
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

In the 28th minute with Argentina leading Jordan 1-0, the referee awarded Jordan a penalty for a high foot in the box and confirmed it after a VAR on-field review. The decision is correct. The key distinction in Law 12: a high foot near an opponent with NO contact is "playing in a dangerous manner" — punished only by an indirect free kick, never a penalty. But the moment the raised boot makes CONTACT with an opponent, it stops being dangerous play and becomes a kicking offence, which is a direct-free-kick foul — and a penalty kick when it happens inside the penalty area. Here the Argentine defender's boot caught a Jordan player who was contesting the ball, so the contact is what elevates it from a dangerous-play indirect free kick to a genuine penalty. The very fact a penalty (not an indirect free kick) was awarded reflects that the officials judged real contact, and the high, studs-up nature of the challenge makes it at least reckless. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence — penalty correctly given, and the VAR/OFR mechanism was used exactly as intended.

🔒 Premium

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.

Ask OURVAR

🔒 PREMIUM

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

You're posting as a guest — one comment per discussion. Sign in to post more and comment under your name: Sign up free →