OURVAR judged the referee's decision: 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
Al-Hilal had a goal disallowed for offside against Al-Nassr. The controversy centres on whether a deflection off an Al-Nassr player during the build-up should have reset the offside trap β if the defender deliberately played the ball, any subsequent Al-Hilal player would be onside. However, the VAR graphic shown in the broadcast clearly places Al-Hilal's #22 ahead of the last Al-Nassr defender at the moment the ball was played to him, with visible daylight between their positions. Even accounting for the deflection sequence, #22 appears to have been in an offside position when he received the ball to make the cross. The decision to disallow the goal appears correct under Law 11, and the on-field call stands.
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?' β and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month Β· WC 50 Β· GB 150.
Discussion