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. 🙏
At 2-2 in the 120th minute of a knockout tie, Belgium were awarded a penalty against Senegal — but only after a VAR review, as the on-field referee had given nothing. Belgium scored it to win. This is a wrong decision. There is soft contact on Tielemans' left leg, so it is not a clean dive, but contact alone is not a foul: neither player plays the ball, the defender is not looking at the attacker, Tielemans arrives from behind, and there is a real argument he opened his leg to seek the contact. That makes it a genuinely marginal, arguable foul — and the well-positioned on-field referee saw it live and deliberately did not award it. The decisive point is the VAR threshold: VAR overturns a no-penalty only for a clear and obvious error. A defensible no-call on soft, possibly-initiated contact is not a clear error, so VAR had no basis to intervene, and manufacturing a match-deciding penalty from 50/50 contact is an overreach. The late, high-stakes context does not change the law — a real foul is a foul at any minute — but nor does it lower the clear-and-obvious bar; the problem is the threshold, not the clock. WRONG DECISION, medium-high confidence. It would become defensible only if a definitive angle showed the defender clearly tripping the leg before any initiation by the attacker — but even a defensible penalty is not the same as a clear error the referee missed, so the intervention itself remains questionable.
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