OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Partially Correct. 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
Referee Daniel Siebert correctly awarded a penalty to Paris Saint-Germain after Arsenal's #3 made contact with PSG's #7 from behind/side, causing the PSG player to go to ground inside the penalty area β the frames show clear physical contact rather than a clean ball-winning challenge, justifying the spot-kick. However, the decision was incomplete: the foul was reckless in nature (significant momentum, use of the body from behind), which under Law 12 should have also been punished with a yellow card. The submitter confirms Arsenal #3 was already carrying a yellow card from earlier in the match, meaning a second yellow card here should have led to a red card and a sending-off. The referee gave PSG the penalty but left #3 on the pitch β a significant missed sanction in a Champions League Final.
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