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. 🙏
Spain had a goal disallowed against Austria for a supposed foul on the goalkeeper at a set piece; VAR did not intervene, so the disallowance stood. This is a wrong decision. In a crowded box, players from both sides jumped for the same ball as the keeper, but there was no push, hold, or block on him — he mistimed his own jump, failed to punch clear, and Cucurella scored the rebound. Under Law 12 a goalkeeper is not untouchable and has no special protection from a fair challenge for the ball; it is only an offence if an opponent actively prevents him from playing or contesting it. A keeper who is fairly beaten, or who misjudges his own jump, has not been fouled. With no impediment, there is no foul and the goal should have counted. WRONG DECISION, medium confidence — the only counter is a stricter keeper-protection view that penalises attackers merely jumping near a keeper, which is not supported where there is no contact and the keeper's failure is his own.
Lee el análisis completo de OURVAR
Regístrate para ver cada punto clave, las cláusulas IFAB citadas y el razonamiento cuadro a cuadro detrás del veredicto.
- Puntos clave que guiaron la decisión de la IA
- Citas completas de las Leyes IFAB + referencias de cuadros
- Vota, comenta y debate con otros aficionados
Pregunta a OURVAR
¿Una duda sobre este 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