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. 🙏
Kane tried to clear in his own box, but Gutiérrez got to the ball first and Kane followed through studs-to-studs; a penalty was given. This is defensible and, on balance, correct. A studs-first challenge where the opponent arrives first is reckless, and 'going for the ball' or 'didn't see him' are not defences — a reckless foul in the area is a penalty. It is genuinely debatable (the impact zone gives some pause), but by a consistent reckless-challenge standard it is a call worth making. CORRECT 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