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. 🙏
At 1-1 in the 78th minute, Ivory Coast's #19 went down between two Norway defenders in the penalty area and appealed for a spot-kick. No penalty was given. This is the correct decision. The key principle is one fans most often get wrong: contact does not equal a penalty. A defender making some contact is not a foul unless that contact is a careless or reckless challenge that actually causes the fall. Here the contact, if any, was minimal, and the attacker went to ground easily rather than being clearly brought down. That is "not enough" for a penalty. It also isn't a clear case of simulation worth a caution, because there does appear to be some contact — it simply doesn't rise to a foul. And because the on-field referee judged no penalty in a genuinely marginal situation, it is not a clear and obvious error, so VAR was right not to intervene. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — with the caveat that if a replay clearly showed a defender clipping his leg and causing the fall, it would flip to a penalty. On the available angles, it does not.
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