OURVAR ha juzgado la decisión del árbitro: Incorrecto. 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. 🙏
Belgium scored a late equaliser against Senegal from a cross to force extra time, which they went on to win on a penalty. The goal should not have stood. Replays show the scorer using both hands to push two Senegal defenders apart while they were looking up at the ball — a clear, one-sided push, not the mutual jostling that is tolerated at set pieces. Pushing an opponent is a direct-free-kick offence, and when an attacking foul creates the goal, the goal must be disallowed. This is not a case of penalising every touch in a crowded box: the distinction is that the defenders were passive and ball-watching while the attacker actively shoved them to make his space. VAR checks every goal, so it either missed the push or wrongly judged it insufficient — a clear attacking foul in the immediate build-up is exactly what VAR exists to catch. WRONG DECISION, medium-high confidence. The one qualifier: it rests on the push being clear and one-sided and materially creating the chance, which the available frames support; if the defenders were also pushing, it would soften toward a scramble, but they are shown watching the ball, not wrestling.
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