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. 🙏
The referee showed a yellow card in this incident, but based on the available frames, the more serious concern is what a Palmeiras (green kit) player did *after* the Flamengo player (CARRASCAL) went to ground. In frames 4 through 7, a Palmeiras player can be seen with their leg raised at height directly over the already-fallen CARRASCAL, in what is consistent with a stamp or dangerous late contact on a grounded opponent. Under the Laws of the Game, directing a raised foot toward a downed player is serious foul play — it uses excessive force and endangers safety — which carries a mandatory red card, not a yellow. The yellow that was shown appears to have addressed a different element of the incident (likely the Flamengo player's original challenge), leaving the more dangerous Palmeiras action unsanctioned or under-sanctioned. A clearer slow-motion angle of the contact point would confirm this conclusively, but the footage as shown suggests the referee got this wrong — a red card for the Palmeiras player was warranted.
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