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. 🙏
Germany appealed for a handball penalty against a Paraguay defender who slid in to block; the ball struck his arm, no penalty was given, and VAR did not intervene. This is the correct decision. Under Law 12, not every contact with the arm is handball. It is only an offence if the player handles deliberately, or if the ball hits an arm that has made the body "unnaturally bigger" — an arm held away from the body in a position that is NOT justifiable by the player's movement. Here the defender was in the act of sliding, and his arm was in a natural supporting position created by that slide, not propped out to expand his silhouette or block the ball. That makes the arm position a justifiable consequence of the body's movement, which the Laws explicitly exempt. There is also no sign of deliberate handling — the ball is struck at him at close range. So there is no offence, and the referee was right to play on and VAR right to stay out. CORRECT DECISION, high confidence — and a clean example of the "justifiable by body movement" exception that most penalty appeals ignore.
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