OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct (No Call). 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. 🙏
The referee correctly allowed play to continue after the ball struck the Arsenal player's arm/body area. Under the 2025/26 Laws of the Game, not every contact between the ball and a player's arm is a handball offence. In this incident, the ball was played from very close range by PSG #5, giving the Arsenal player virtually no time to react. The arm's position in the frames shows it was not raised above the shoulder or spread unnaturally wide — it was in a posture consistent with a player running normally. With minimal reaction time and no clear unnatural arm position, IFAB Law 12 does not require this to be penalised, and the referee's decision to play on was the correct one.
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