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. 🙏
At a corner in Germany–Paraguay — separate from the disallowed Tah goal — Anton and Paraguay keeper Orlando Gill clashed: Anton stepped on Gill's foot, and Gill kicked back, in front of the referee. Nothing was given to either, which is wrong. Kicking an opponent in retaliation is violent conduct under Law 12 and a straight red, and provocation is no defence; Anton's step is a separate, cautionable offence. The correct outcome is a red for Gill and a yellow for Anton — not nothing for both. WRONG DECISION, medium confidence.
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