1 / 3 today
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #60

São Paulo FC vs Boston River

Copa Sudamericana · 2025/2026 · 2026-05-26 · 2-0

Wrong medium confidence
Penalty (push/hold in box)
🗳️ Community verdict — vote now 3 votes needed for verdict

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. 🙏

Incident
Penalty (push/hold in box)
Law cited
Law 11 — Offside
Recommended action
Penalty to São Paulo FC should stand. The foul occurred before the attacker played or attempted to play the ball, so under Law 11 the foul (not the offside) is the offence — VAR was wrong to overturn to offside, and the defender's caution should also stand.
Affected team
On-field decision
VAR overturned to no penalty
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

Being in an offside POSITION is not itself an offence — an offside offence only exists once the attacker becomes involved in active play. The decisive question is purely temporal: was the attacker fouled BEFORE or AFTER he played / attempted to play / challenged for the ball?

🔒 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

🔒 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?' — and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month · WC 50 · GB 150.

Discussion

You're posting as a guest — one comment per discussion. Sign in to post more and comment under your name: Sign up free →