OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong. You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right β not on the referee.
Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?
Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy β 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. π
The referee showed a yellow card in this incident, but based on the available frames, the more serious concern is what a Palmeiras (green kit) player did *after* the Flamengo player (CARRASCAL) went to ground. In frames 4 through 7, a Palmeiras player can be seen with their leg raised at height directly over the already-fallen CARRASCAL, in what is consistent with a stamp or dangerous late contact on a grounded opponent. Under the Laws of the Game, directing a raised foot toward a downed player is serious foul play β it uses excessive force and endangers safety β which carries a mandatory red card, not a yellow. The yellow that was shown appears to have addressed a different element of the incident (likely the Flamengo player's original challenge), leaving the more dangerous Palmeiras action unsanctioned or under-sanctioned. A clearer slow-motion angle of the contact point would confirm this conclusively, but the footage as shown suggests the referee got this wrong β a red card for the Palmeiras player was warranted.
Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to this verdict.
Push back on the verdict. Ask the AI 'why?', 'what about the elbow angle?', 'what's the precedent?' β and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month Β· WC 50 Β· GB 150.
Discussion