OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct (No Call). 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
In this incident, Arsenal's striker went to ground in the Paris Saint-Germain penalty area and demanded a penalty kick β one of the most controversial moments of the match. The referee let play continue, and based on what the frames show, that was the correct call. Looking at the build-up, both players had their arms in contact with each other from the start, and crucially, the Arsenal attacker can be seen wrapping/hooking his own arm around the PSG defender's β meaning the grappling was clearly two-way, not a one-sided hold by the defender. Under the Laws of the Game, mutual wrestling in the penalty area does not automatically produce a penalty; the defender's contact must be the primary cause of the fall. Here it wasn't: both players were restraining each other, and the fall was the product of shared balance disruption rather than a clear shove or grab from PSG. The play-on was the right decision, even given UEFA's generally tighter standard for box contact.
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