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. 🙏
In this incident, Coritiba #32 challenges Flamengo #44 for the ball and makes contact with the Flamengo player's ankle or lower leg area. VAR upgraded the original decision to a red card for serious foul play. However, based on the visible frames, the challenge appears to be a reckless but not excessively dangerous tackle — the contact is at a low height (ankle/shin level), there is no clear evidence of studs raised at a dangerous height or a two-footed lunge, and the approach speed appears moderate. Under Law 12, the difference between a yellow card (reckless) and a red card (excessive force/serious foul play) hinges on whether the player's safety was genuinely endangered. This challenge looks more like a firm, reckless tackle that warranted a yellow card — not one that rose to the level of seriously endangering the opponent's safety. The VAR upgrade to red appears to have been too severe for what the footage shows, making this a wrong decision.
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