OURVAR a jugé la décision de l'arbitre : Correct. Vous votez pour savoir si l'analyse d'OURVAR est correcte — pas sur l'arbitre.
Êtes-vous d'accord avec le verdict d'OURVAR ?
Germany were awarded a clear penalty against Ecuador, but VAR overturned it and gave Ecuador a free kick instead, because Germany's Sané had fouled an Ecuador player in the build-up roughly 10-15 seconds earlier. The penalty itself being clear is irrelevant: under the VAR protocol, an attacking-team foul that occurs within the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) — the continuous possession phase that leads to a penalty or goal — is brought back, and the foul takes precedence over whatever the attacking team subsequently won. The APP is defined by continuous possession, not by elapsed time, so a 10-15s unbroken German possession from Sané's foul to the penalty keeps the foul inside the reviewable window. Because Sané committed a genuine foul and Germany retained possession throughout, VAR correctly rescinded the penalty and awarded Ecuador the free kick at the original offence. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence. (This is the mirror of the Argentina goal case: same APP rule, but there the build-up contact was NOT a foul so the goal stood; here it WAS a foul so the penalty is wiped.)
Inscris-toi pour voir chaque point clé, les clauses des Lois IFAB citées et le raisonnement image par image derrière ce verdict.
Conteste le verdict. Pose à OURVAR « pourquoi ? », « et l'angle du coude ? », « quel précédent ? » — et reçois des réponses ancrées dans les Lois de l'IFAB par le même modèle qui a analysé le cas. Pro 25/mois · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discussion