🤝 89% acuerdo de la comunidad
OURVAR ha juzgado la decisión del árbitro: Incorrecto. Estás votando si el análisis de OURVAR es correcto, no sobre el árbitro.
¿Estás de acuerdo con el veredicto de OURVAR?
Brazil scored against Scotland (making it 0-1) but the goal was disallowed after a VAR on-field review for a foul by Vini (Brazil) in the build-up. The replay shows Vini attempting to steal the ball from a Scotland player: he stretched his leg in, won the ball, and the Scot then tripped over his outstretched leg. The contact was soft and ball-first. Under Law 12, a player who plays and wins the ball — with the opponent tripping over the legally-placed leg — is "playing the ball, not the man," which is a fair challenge, not a trip. Even if one judged it a soft foul, the VAR standard for overturning a goal is a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS error, and a marginal, soft leg-tangle in a ball-steal does not meet that bar. Disallowing the goal was inconsistent with both Law 12 and the high contact-threshold the referees have applied throughout this World Cup. WRONG DECISION, MEDIUM confidence — the goal should have stood.
Regístrate para ver cada punto clave, las cláusulas IFAB citadas y el razonamiento cuadro a cuadro detrás del veredicto.
Cuestiona el veredicto. Pregunta a OURVAR "¿por qué?", "¿y el ángulo del codo?", "¿qué precedente hay?" — y recibe respuestas fundamentadas en las Leyes IFAB del mismo modelo que analizó el caso. Pro 25/mes · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discusión