Você concorda com o veredicto do OURVAR?
At 78:40, 0-0, Ghana #25 (Prince) broke through the middle on a counter and beat England #2 for position, pushing the ball ahead into the penalty area. The recovering England defender slid in from behind/the side and caught the attacker's legs before he could reach the ball, bringing him down inside the box. England's goalkeeper then arrived and collided — but with his own defender, not the attacker, so that contact is irrelevant to the foul. The on-field referee waved play on and VAR did not intervene. This is a clear missed penalty: under Law 12 a recovering defender who trips an attacker who has already won position is a careless tripping foul, and inside the penalty area (Law 14) that is a penalty kick. The attacker had beaten his man and was reaching for the ball — exactly the scenario the laws protect. WRONG NO-CALL, HIGH confidence.
Leia a análise completa da OURVAR
Cadastre-se para ver cada ponto-chave, as cláusulas das Leis IFAB citadas e o raciocínio quadro a quadro que levou a este veredito.
- Pontos-chave que orientaram a decisão da IA
- Citações completas das Leis IFAB + referências de quadros
- Vote, comente e discuta com outros fãs
Pergunte à OURVAR
Alguma dúvida sobre este veredito?
Questione o veredito. Pergunte ao OURVAR "por quê?", "e o ângulo do cotovelo?", "qual o precedente?" — e receba respostas fundamentadas nas Leis da IFAB do mesmo modelo que analisou o lance. Pro 25/mês · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discussão