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. 🙏
Belgium appealed for a penalty when the ball struck Rodri's arm in the Spain box, but the ball had come off team-mate Laporte's header from point-blank range as Rodri jumped beside him; no penalty was given. This is a correct no-call. Law 12 does not punish a handball when the ball comes directly off the head or body of a close team-mate, and an arm raised as a consequence of jumping is not "unnaturally bigger" in a punishable sense — with no time to react, there is no offence. The arm is high, which is where the debate sits, but the point-blank deflection off a team-mate is decisive. CORRECT NO-CALL, medium confidence — it flips to a penalty only on a strict arm-above-shoulder reading that ignores the close deflection.
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