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. 🙏
Embolo went down under a Paredes challenge and the referee first booked Paredes; after a VAR review the referee judged it a dive, rescinded Paredes' yellow and cautioned Embolo for simulation — a second yellow, so a red. This is correct on substance and process. The fall is a clear dive with no foul, so the caution belongs to Embolo and Paredes' card is rightly wiped; and the 2026 World Cup's expanded mistaken-identity protocol expressly lets VAR move a card shown to the wrong player, provided a card was issued — the same mechanism used for the Almirón/Ream dive in USA v Paraguay. As simulation is only a yellow, the dismissal stands as a second caution. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — it rests on the dive being clear and on Embolo carrying an earlier booking.
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