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. 🙏
The referee showed a red card to the Palmeiras player for this sliding challenge on the Chapecoense opponent, but based on what is visible in the frames, this appears to be the wrong call. The contact landed at roughly ankle/lower shin height without a clear studs-up, high-foot presentation that would normally justify serious foul play. Under IFAB Law 12, there is an important distinction between a *reckless* challenge (which earns a yellow card) and one involving *excessive force that endangers the opponent's safety* (which earns a red). The challenge here — mistimed, from the side-rear, at ankle level — looks like a yellow-card foul: deserving of punishment, but not crossing the line into the most serious category. A yellow card and a free kick to Chapecoense would have been the proportionate and correct response.
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