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. 🙏
Spain had a goal disallowed against Austria for a supposed foul on the goalkeeper at a set piece; VAR did not intervene, so the disallowance stood. This is a wrong decision. In a crowded box, players from both sides jumped for the same ball as the keeper, but there was no push, hold, or block on him — he mistimed his own jump, failed to punch clear, and Cucurella scored the rebound. Under Law 12 a goalkeeper is not untouchable and has no special protection from a fair challenge for the ball; it is only an offence if an opponent actively prevents him from playing or contesting it. A keeper who is fairly beaten, or who misjudges his own jump, has not been fouled. With no impediment, there is no foul and the goal should have counted. WRONG DECISION, medium confidence — the only counter is a stricter keeper-protection view that penalises attackers merely jumping near a keeper, which is not supported where there is no contact and the keeper's failure is his own.
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