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. 🙏
Deep in extra time at 2-2, Croatia scored what looked like a dramatic equaliser against Portugal. The referee gave the goal, but VAR disallowed it for offside after checking connected-ball sensor data — and the reason is a subtle but exact application of Law 11. The player who delivered the final cross (#15) was onside. However, a different Croatian player, in an offside position, brushed the ball as it passed him — a contact on his hair or the top of his head, invisible to the naked eye but registered by the sensor inside the match ball. Under Law 11, a player in an offside position who touches a ball played by a teammate is "interfering with play," and that is an offside offence. Crucially, any touch qualifies: it does not need to change the ball's direction, and it does not need to be deliberate. So the offence was complete the moment the offside player made contact, regardless of what happened afterwards or of #15 being onside. This is a factual, objective determination — like goal-line technology — not a subjective judgement: the sensor either detected a touch or it didn't, and it did. CORRECT DECISION, high confidence. Brutal for Croatia, erased by a touch no human could have seen, but exactly right.
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