OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong (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. 🙏
In the 17th minute of England vs France at the 2022 World Cup, France #18 (identified by the submitter as Upamecano) made contact with the England attacker (#17, identified as Saka) from behind using his arm/hand into the player's midsection — visible in frame 2 — at a moment when the ball was ahead of both players and not being contested. The England player ended up on the ground, appealing to referee Sampaio. Under Law 12, using the arm to push or impede an opponent while not playing the ball is at minimum a careless foul and should have produced a free kick for England. Referee Sampaio played on, and VAR did not intervene under the "clear and obvious error" standard, meaning the foul went uncalled and France retained possession, leading directly to their opening goal seconds later. The no-call was wrong: the evidence of arm contact in frame 2 is sufficient to meet the careless-challenge threshold, and a free kick should have been awarded to England.
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