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. 🙏
During a Norway goal kick the ball clipped the overhead camera cable in flight, clearly changing its direction; play was not stopped, and England scored their equalizer through Bellingham a few passes later. This is a wrong decision. Under Law 9 the ball striking an overhead camera or cable is outside interference: play must be stopped and restarted with a dropped ball — here to Norway, from their own goal kick — so the goal that followed cannot stand. This is a factual matter, not a subjective one, so it is not gated by the clear-and-obvious threshold. WRONG DECISION, high confidence — it rests entirely on the confirmed cable contact, which the decisive frame must show.
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