OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct. 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. 🙏
A South Africa player — the last outfield defender between the Mexico attacker and goal — brought down Mexico #26 with a challenge near the edge of the penalty area. The close-up replay shows Mexico #26 going to ground head-first in a manner consistent with being tripped, confirming that contact occurred. Because the foul appears to have happened outside the penalty area, this is a textbook Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO): the attacker had the ball under control, was heading directly toward goal, and only the goalkeeper stood behind. Under the IFAB Laws applicable to the 2026 World Cup, DOGSO outside the penalty area means a mandatory red card with no "double punishment" mitigation available — so the referee's decision to show red was correct.
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