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. 🙏
England were given a penalty in extra time when their attacker went down in the box, but a VAR review had the referee overturn it because the attacker put his leg in front of the defender to initiate the contact. This is correct. A penalty needs a foul by the defender, and where the attacker manufactures the contact rather than being tripped, there is no offence — contact and a fall are not automatically a penalty. The on-field penalty was the clear error, and the VAR overturn corrected it. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — it flips only if a replay shows the defender clearly caught the attacker's standing leg first.
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