OURVAR ha juzgado la decisión del árbitro: Correcto (sin pitar). 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. 🙏
In this incident, Arsenal's striker went to ground in the Paris Saint-Germain penalty area and demanded a penalty kick — one of the most controversial moments of the match. The referee let play continue, and based on what the frames show, that was the correct call. Looking at the build-up, both players had their arms in contact with each other from the start, and crucially, the Arsenal attacker can be seen wrapping/hooking his own arm around the PSG defender's — meaning the grappling was clearly two-way, not a one-sided hold by the defender. Under the Laws of the Game, mutual wrestling in the penalty area does not automatically produce a penalty; the defender's contact must be the primary cause of the fall. Here it wasn't: both players were restraining each other, and the fall was the product of shared balance disruption rather than a clear shove or grab from PSG. The play-on was the right decision, even given UEFA's generally tighter standard for box contact.
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