OURVAR a jugé la décision de l'arbitre : Correct. Vous votez pour savoir si l'analyse d'OURVAR est correcte — pas sur l'arbitre.
Êtes-vous d'accord avec le verdict d'OURVAR ?
Chaque vote contribue à affiner la précision d'OURVAR — et nous vous en sommes reconnaissants. L'AI n'est pas infaillible, et votre verdict est exactement ce qui l'améliore, cas après cas. Vous aidez à construire le VAR que nous méritons tous. 🙏
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.
Inscris-toi pour voir chaque point clé, les clauses des Lois IFAB citées et le raisonnement image par image derrière ce verdict.
Conteste le verdict. Pose à OURVAR « pourquoi ? », « et l'angle du coude ? », « quel précédent ? » — et reçois des réponses ancrées dans les Lois de l'IFAB par le même modèle qui a analysé le cas. Pro 25/mois · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discussion