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. 🙏
Just before half-time, trailing DR Congo 1-0, England's Harry Kane went down under a challenge from the onrushing goalkeeper near the edge of the box. The referee instantly signalled a dive and gave no penalty; VAR checked and took no action. This is the correct decision. The principle is the one fans most often get wrong: contact does not equal a penalty. A goalkeeper committing to a slide is not fouling unless he misses the ball and brings the attacker down — and here the contact was minimal and Kane was already falling, so it does not rise to a foul. Two details support the call: the referee, well-placed, read it live as going down too easily; and although he signalled a dive he did not caution Kane, which is the honest middle ground — not enough for a penalty, but not clear-cut simulation either, usually meaning some light contact existed. VAR checking and taking no action confirms there was no clear and obvious error to correct. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — with the caveat that if a replay clearly showed the keeper missing the ball and clipping Kane's leg to cause the fall, it would flip to a penalty (and a DOGSO question, most likely a yellow rather than red as the keeper was attempting to play the ball in his own area). On the available angles, it does not.
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