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. 🙏
Ghana equalised against Croatia at 1-1, and after the celebrations the assistant referee flagged for offside, sending the referee to the monitor for nearly four minutes. The goal was correctly given. The decision turns on the most misunderstood principle in Law 11: being in an offside position is NOT an offence. A player is only penalised if he is in an offside position AND becomes involved in active play — by touching the ball, by interfering with an opponent (blocking the goalkeeper's sight or movement, challenging a defender), or by gaining an advantage from a rebound. Here, two things make the goal valid: first, the player who actually scored was ONSIDE; second, Ghana's #8, who was in an offside position, did not touch the ball and did not interfere with any opponent. As the referee stated: "The attacker number 8 was in an offside position, but he did not interfere with play. Decision is goal for Ghana." An offside-positioned teammate who stays passive and out of the play does not invalidate a goal scored by an onside player. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence — and the long check reflects the referee correctly verifying both the scorer's position and whether #8 became active.
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