OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct (No Call). 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 let play continue after Brazil's #7 went to ground inside the Egypt defensive area, and VAR backed that up — the footage shows why. There is genuine foot contact between an Egypt defender and the Brazil attacker in the key frames, but it appears to be a glancing clip rather than a proper trip. More tellingly, the Brazil player's fall is dramatically out of proportion to the visible force of contact — he goes nearly horizontal to the ground in what looks like an exaggerated reaction to minimal contact. The ball had also already left his feet before the fall happened, so even accepting some contact occurred, it didn't cost him the ball or a meaningful opportunity. The referee and VAR were correct to wave play on.
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