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. 🙏
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.
Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to 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