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. 🙏
About 15 seconds before Brazil's first-half penalty, a Brazil player tripped a Norway opponent in midfield to win the ball — no foul given, no VAR review — and that possession led straight to the penalty. This is a wrong decision. A trip is a foul even when the fouler wins the ball, and a penalty that flows from a possession begun by a foul is reviewable and should be cancelled under the attacking-possession-phase protocol. The penalty incident itself may be a foul in isolation, but the correct overall outcome is no penalty, because the ball was won illegally. 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