1 / 3 today
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #154

England vs DR Congo

FIFA World Cup · 2026/2027 · 2026-07-01

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 — a foul requires a careless/reckless challenge
Recommended action
No penalty (correct). The goalkeeper's contact, if any, was minimal and did not clearly cause the fall
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
Kane went down under a challenge from the DR Congo goalkeeper on the edge of the area. The referee immediately signalled a dive (no caution shown). No penalty. VAR checked and took no action; play continued.
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

Just before half-time, trailing DR Congo 1-0, England's Harry Kane went down under a challenge from the onrushing goalkeeper near the edge of the box. The referee instantly signalled a dive and gave no penalty; VAR checked and took no action. This is the correct decision. The principle is the one fans most often get wrong: contact does not equal a penalty. A goalkeeper committing to a slide is not fouling unless he misses the ball and brings the attacker down — and here the contact was minimal and Kane was already falling, so it does not rise to a foul. Two details support the call: the referee, well-placed, read it live as going down too easily; and although he signalled a dive he did not caution Kane, which is the honest middle ground — not enough for a penalty, but not clear-cut simulation either, usually meaning some light contact existed. VAR checking and taking no action confirms there was no clear and obvious error to correct. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — with the caveat that if a replay clearly showed the keeper missing the ball and clipping Kane's leg to cause the fall, it would flip to a penalty (and a DOGSO question, most likely a yellow rather than red as the keeper was attempting to play the ball in his own area). On the available angles, it does not.

🔒 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 →