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. 🙏
Montes commits a foul on a South African attacker who had already beaten his marker, had ball control, and was advancing into the path between the defensive line and the goal. The DOGSO criteria are met: distance to goal, position toward the goal, number of defenders between offence and goal, and likelihood of controlling the ball after a possible dribble. Referee Sampaio's red card to Montes is a textbook DOGSO send-off — the foul on its own might have read as "reckless" rather than "serious foul play", but the surrounding context (obvious goal-scoring opportunity denied) makes red the correct disciplinary outcome under Law 12, not yellow.
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