2 / 3 today Sign up free β†’
βš– VAR Verdict Β· Case #181

Argentina vs Egypt

FIFA World Cup Β· 2025/2026 Β· 2026-07-07 Β· 3-2

Correct high confidence
Penalty (push/hold in box)
πŸ—³οΈ Community verdict β€” vote now 4 votes needed for verdict

OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct. You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right β€” not on the referee.

Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?

Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy β€” 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. πŸ™

Incident
Penalty (push/hold in box)
Law cited
Law 14 β€” a challenge that trips or brings down an attacker inside the penalty area, without fairly winning the ball, is a foul and a penalty. The outcome of the spot-kick that follows has no bearing on whether the award was correct.
Recommended action
Penalty correct β€” the Argentina attacker was fouled inside the area as he drove into the box. It is a clear foul in the penalty area, so the award is right; Messi subsequently missing the kick does not change that the decision itself was correct.
Affected team
On-field decision
Penalty given to Argentina
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it β€” we review every submission.
Suggest a clip β†’

An Argentina attacker was brought down in the box by an Egypt defender and a penalty was given; Messi then missed it. This is a correct decision. A challenge that fouls an attacker in the area without winning the ball is a penalty, and on the available angle it is a clear foul. The missed kick is irrelevant β€” a decision is judged on the moment it was made, not the outcome. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence.

πŸ”’ 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

πŸ”’ 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?' β€” and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month Β· WC 50 Β· GB 150.

Discussion

You're posting as a guest β€” one comment per discussion. Sign in to post more and comment under your name: Sign up free β†’