2 / 3 today Sign up free →
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #155

Belgium vs Senegal

FIFA World Cup · 2026/2027 · 2026-07-01 · 3-2 (AET)

Wrong high confidence
Goal cancelled — foul in build-up
🗳️ Community verdict — vote now 5 votes needed for verdict

OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong. 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
Goal cancelled — foul in build-up
Law cited
Law 12 — pushing an opponent
Recommended action
Goal should be DISALLOWED
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
Belgium scored a header equaliser from a cross. The goal was awarded and VAR did not intervene, sending the match to extra time (which Belgium won on a later penalty).
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

Belgium scored a late equaliser against Senegal from a cross to force extra time, which they went on to win on a penalty. The goal should not have stood. Replays show the scorer using both hands to push two Senegal defenders apart while they were looking up at the ball — a clear, one-sided push, not the mutual jostling that is tolerated at set pieces. Pushing an opponent is a direct-free-kick offence, and when an attacking foul creates the goal, the goal must be disallowed. This is not a case of penalising every touch in a crowded box: the distinction is that the defenders were passive and ball-watching while the attacker actively shoved them to make his space. VAR checks every goal, so it either missed the push or wrongly judged it insufficient — a clear attacking foul in the immediate build-up is exactly what VAR exists to catch. WRONG DECISION, medium-high confidence. The one qualifier: it rests on the push being clear and one-sided and materially creating the chance, which the available frames support; if the defenders were also pushing, it would soften toward a scramble, but they are shown watching the ball, not wrestling.

🔒 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 →