O OURVAR julgou a decisão do árbitro: Correto. Você está votando se a análise do OURVAR está correta — não sobre o árbitro.
Você concorda com o veredicto do OURVAR?
Cada voto ajuda a aprimorar a precisão do OURVAR — e somos gratos por isso. A AI não é infalível, e o seu veredicto é exatamente o que a melhora, caso a caso. Você está ajudando a construir o VAR que todos merecemos. 🙏
The referee initially awarded Belgium a penalty for handball against New Zealand, but VAR recommended a review and the referee overturned it on the monitor, ruling the defender's arm was in a natural position. The final decision is correct. Under Law 12, a defender's accidental handball is a penalty only if the arm made the body "unnaturally bigger" or the act was deliberate. The defender was lunging to block with his arm out as a natural part of that motion — not extended beyond what the action required — and the shot was struck from close range, leaving minimal reaction time, which Law 12 treats as mitigation. So there was no punishable handball, and the original award was a clear-and-obvious error — the standard required for VAR to rescind a penalty already given. The referee confirming the overturn on his own monitor review is a strong endorsement of the no-handball conclusion. CORRECT DECISION, MEDIUM confidence — handball remains the most subjective area and VAR overturning a subjective call is only proper when the original is clearly wrong, which the close-range/natural-arm factors here support.
Cadastre-se para ver cada ponto-chave, as cláusulas das Leis IFAB citadas e o raciocínio quadro a quadro que levou a 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