O OURVAR julgou a decisão do árbitro: Errado. 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. 🙏
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.
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