1 / 3 today
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #150

Germany vs Paraguay

FIFA World Cup · 2025/2026 · 2026-06-29 · 1-1 (3-4)

Correct high confidence
Penalty (handball)
🗳️ 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 (handball)
Law cited
Law 12 — Handling the ball. Not every touch of the hand/arm is an offence. It is an offence only if the player handles deliberately, or the ball touches a hand/arm that has made the body "unnaturally bigger"
Recommended action
No penalty (correct). The ball struck the arm of a defender in the act of sliding/blocking. The arm was not extended…
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
Germany appealed for handball against a sliding Paraguay defender; no penalty given, VAR did not intervene. Play continued.
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

Germany appealed for a handball penalty against a Paraguay defender who slid in to block; the ball struck his arm, no penalty was given, and VAR did not intervene. This is the correct decision. Under Law 12, not every contact with the arm is handball. It is only an offence if the player handles deliberately, or if the ball hits an arm that has made the body "unnaturally bigger" — an arm held away from the body in a position that is NOT justifiable by the player's movement. Here the defender was in the act of sliding, and his arm was in a natural supporting position created by that slide, not propped out to expand his silhouette or block the ball. That makes the arm position a justifiable consequence of the body's movement, which the Laws explicitly exempt. There is also no sign of deliberate handling — the ball is struck at him at close range. So there is no offence, and the referee was right to play on and VAR right to stay out. CORRECT DECISION, high confidence — and a clean example of the "justifiable by body movement" exception that most penalty appeals ignore.

🔒 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 →