OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Insufficient Footage. 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. 🙏
Portugal had what appeared to be a goal — the ball going toward the Nigeria goal with the goalkeeper making a dramatic diving save — but VAR stepped in and overturned the decision, ruling no goal. The key question was whether the entire ball had fully crossed the entire goal line before the goalkeeper got to it, because under the Laws of the Game every millimetre of the ball must be completely over the line for a goal to count. Unfortunately the broadcast frames available here — a blurry, oblique side-on camera panning with the action — never give a clear, stable view of the exact ball-to-line relationship at the decisive moment, so this analysis cannot independently confirm or challenge whether VAR's disallowance was correct. A goal-line technology image or a behind-the-goal high-speed replay would be needed to reach a definitive conclusion.
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