OURVAR ha juzgado la decisión del árbitro: Correcto. Estás votando si el análisis de OURVAR es correcto, no sobre el árbitro.
¿Estás de acuerdo con el veredicto de OURVAR?
Cada voto ayuda a afinar la precisión de OURVAR — y te lo agradecemos. La AI no es infalible, y tu veredicto es exactamente lo que la mejora, caso por caso. Estás ayudando a construir el VAR que todos merecemos. 🙏
In the 28th minute with Argentina leading Jordan 1-0, the referee awarded Jordan a penalty for a high foot in the box and confirmed it after a VAR on-field review. The decision is correct. The key distinction in Law 12: a high foot near an opponent with NO contact is "playing in a dangerous manner" — punished only by an indirect free kick, never a penalty. But the moment the raised boot makes CONTACT with an opponent, it stops being dangerous play and becomes a kicking offence, which is a direct-free-kick foul — and a penalty kick when it happens inside the penalty area. Here the Argentine defender's boot caught a Jordan player who was contesting the ball, so the contact is what elevates it from a dangerous-play indirect free kick to a genuine penalty. The very fact a penalty (not an indirect free kick) was awarded reflects that the officials judged real contact, and the high, studs-up nature of the challenge makes it at least reckless. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence — penalty correctly given, and the VAR/OFR mechanism was used exactly as intended.
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