2 / 3 today Sign up free β†’
βš– VAR Verdict Β· Case #91

England vs Tunisia

FIFA World Cup Β· Pre-VAR Β· 1998-06-15 Β· 2-0

Wrong (No Call) high confidence
Red card β€” serious foul play
πŸ—³οΈ Community verdict β€” vote now 5 votes needed for verdict

OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong (No Call). 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. πŸ™

Incident
Red card β€” serious foul play
Law cited
Law 12 β€” Fouls and Misconduct
Recommended action
Red card to England #8 β€” serious foul play (excessive force, high boot endangering opponent safety)
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
No card (foul only)
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it β€” we review every submission.
Suggest a clip β†’

The referee gave a foul but showed no card when England's #8 caught Tunisia's #2 with a dangerously high boot during the 1998 World Cup group match. The frames clearly show the England player's raised foot connecting with the Tunisia player at or above knee height, with studs showing and significant uncontrolled momentum β€” exactly the kind of challenge that IFAB Law 12 defines as serious foul play requiring a red card. Simply giving a free kick without any dismissal was not enough: the height of the boot, the exposed studs, and the force applied directly endangered the safety of the Tunisia player and crossed the line from reckless (yellow) into excessive force (red). This was a clear missed sending-off.

πŸ”’ Premium

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.

Ask OURVAR

πŸ”’ PREMIUM

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

You're posting as a guest β€” one comment per discussion. Sign in to post more and comment under your name: Sign up free β†’