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. 🙏
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.
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