The silence suggested either they weren't watching, or they changed the standard
En los instantes finales de un duelo de Copa Libertadores entre Boca y Cruzeiro, dos decisiones arbitrales sobre mano marcaron el rumbo del partido con una asimetría difícil de ignorar: un gol legítimo fue anulado por un contacto que las repeticiones no confirmaban, mientras que una mano similar en el área rival pasó sin revisión en el momento más decisivo. La inconsistencia del VAR no solo privó a Boca de una victoria posible, sino que abrió una pregunta más profunda sobre la equidad con que se aplican las reglas en los partidos que más importan. En el fútbol, como en tantos ámbitos de la vida colectiva, no es solo la norma lo que define la justicia, sino la coherencia con que se ejerce.
- Boca convirtió un gol que habría significado el 2-1, pero el VAR llamó al árbitro Valenzuela al monitor y la celebración fue borrada por un supuesto handball de Delgado que las imágenes nunca confirmaron con claridad.
- Minutos después, con el partido aún en disputa, el balón golpeó el brazo izquierdo de Lucas Romero dentro del área de Cruzeiro, una acción al menos tan visible como la que había costado el gol a Boca.
- Esta vez el VAR no intervino, Valenzuela no fue llamado al monitor, y el árbitro pitó el final de inmediato, dejando a Boca con un empate que sus jugadores y hinchas sintieron como una sustracción.
- La asimetría fue el verdadero escándalo: el mismo sistema que actuó dos veces sobre situaciones de mano durante el partido eligió el silencio exactamente cuando Boca más lo necesitaba.
- La duda que quedó flotando —si el equipo del VAR no vio la mano de Romero o decidió no señalarla— resulta inquietante en cualquiera de sus versiones, y pone en cuestión los estándares de arbitraje en la Copa Libertadores.
El pitido final dejó a Boca con un sabor amargo que no tenía que ver con el marcador en sí, sino con lo que el arbitraje les había quitado. En un partido de Copa Libertadores ante Cruzeiro, dos situaciones de mano definieron la tarde con una lógica que nadie supo explicar.
Primero fue el gol de Miguel Merentiel. Milton Delgado ganó un duelo aéreo, habilitó a su compañero y el delantero convirtió con claridad. El VAR llamó al árbitro Valenzuela al monitor: supuesta mano de Delgado en el inicio de la jugada. Las repeticiones no mostraban contacto evidente; el brazo del jugador acompañaba el movimiento natural del cuerpo. Aun así, Valenzuela anuló el gol. El 2-1 se convirtió en 1-1.
Minutos más tarde, Boca atacó de nuevo. Un centro encontró la cabeza de Ángel Romero y el balón fue a dar al brazo izquierdo de Lucas Romero, mediocampista de Cruzeiro, dentro del área. El jugador lo despejó. Valenzuela dejó seguir. El VAR, esta vez, no dijo nada. El partido terminó sin penal.
La contradicción era evidente. El mismo sistema que había intervenido dos veces en la tarde por situaciones de mano —una para anular un gol de Cruzeiro, otra para borrar el de Merentiel— guardó silencio en el momento más determinante. Boca había sido el destinatario de ambas anulaciones, y ahora también de la omisión.
Analizando la acción de Romero con frialdad, había argumentos para no cobrarla: el balón llegó a él, no buscó el contacto, y su brazo no adoptaba una postura antinatural. Bajo el reglamento, eso podría justificar la decisión de no señalar. Pero ese mismo criterio habría debido proteger a Delgado. La inconsistencia no estaba en cada decisión por separado, sino en el patrón que formaban juntas.
Boca se fue con un empate que sintió robado, no por un error aislado, sino por una tarde en que las reglas parecieron aplicarse de manera distinta según el momento y el equipo afectado.
The final whistle blew on a match that left Boca's players and fans seething—not because they lost, but because of what the officials decided to take from them. In the closing moments of a Copa Libertadores clash against Cruzeiro, two handball incidents bookended a narrative of inconsistency that would define the afternoon: one goal wrongly erased, one penalty wrongly ignored.
With Boca pressing hard for a victory, Miguel Merentiel found the back of the net. The play began when Milton Delgado won an aerial duel against Jonathan Jesus, then delivered a pass that Merentiel finished cleanly. But the VAR intervened. Referee Valenzuela was called to the monitor to review what officials claimed was a handball by Delgado in the buildup. The images were difficult to parse from any angle. No clear contact between hand and ball emerged from the replays. Delgado's arm position appeared natural to his body's movement. Yet Valenzuela, after consulting the screen, reversed his initial decision and disallowed the goal. What would have been 2-1 for Boca became 1-1.
Minutes later, with the match still hanging in the balance, Boca mounted another attack. A cross found Ángel Romero's head, and the ball deflected toward Lucas Romero, Cruzeiro's Argentine midfielder. The ball struck Romero's left arm inside the penalty area. He cleared it away. Referee Valenzuela let play continue. The VAR, this time, did not call. The match ended without a penalty awarded.
The asymmetry was stark. Earlier in the game, the VAR had already intervened twice on handball matters—once to overturn a Cruzeiro goal, once to disallow Merentiel's finish. Yet when a handball occurred in nearly identical circumstances in the final moments, with Boca's fate hanging on the decision, the video review stayed silent. Valenzuela blew the final whistle immediately.
Analyzing the Romero handball on its own merits, there were arguments for letting it stand. The distance between Romero's initial position and the moment the ball struck his arm was minimal. His arm did not move to meet the ball; the ball came to him. His limb was not extended in an unnatural posture. He appeared to react instinctively, unable to withdraw his arm in time. Under the laws of the game, handball requires either deliberate contact or an unnatural arm position that enlarges the player's body. Romero's arm seemed to satisfy neither condition.
But the larger issue transcended this single moment. Valenzuela had proven willing to overturn his own decisions when the VAR called him to review. He had done so with Delgado's handball, a contact far less obvious than Romero's. The inconsistency—the willingness to examine one handball closely while ignoring another in nearly identical circumstances—suggested something had shifted in how the match was being officiated. Boca had been on the receiving end of both reversals. In the final, most consequential moment, they were denied even a review.
What remained unclear was whether the VAR team simply missed the Romero handball, or whether they made a deliberate choice not to intervene. Either explanation was troubling. If they missed it, their attention had lapsed at the match's most critical juncture, after already calling the referee twice on similar matters. If they saw it and chose not to call, then the standard for handball had shifted without explanation between the 70th minute and the 90th. Boca left the pitch with a draw they felt had been taken from them—not by a single bad call, but by a pattern of decisions that seemed to follow no consistent logic.
Citações Notáveis
The VAR had already intervened twice on handball matters earlier in the game, yet when a handball occurred in nearly identical circumstances in the final moments, the video review stayed silent— Match analysis
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that the VAR called the referee twice earlier if they didn't call him at the end?
Because it establishes what the officials were willing to review. They'd already stopped the match twice to examine handballs. The third one, in the final moments, was in the same area, same type of contact. The silence suggests either they weren't watching, or they changed the standard without saying so.
Could Romero's handball have been genuinely different from Delgado's?
Possibly. Romero's arm was in a more natural position, the distance shorter, the movement more reflexive. But that's exactly the point—if those differences mattered, the VAR should have explained them. Instead, they reviewed one and ignored the other.
What would have changed if the penalty had been called?
Boca would have had a chance to go ahead late in the match. Instead, they left with a draw. In a knockout competition like Copa Libertadores, that's the difference between advancing and going home.
Is this about one bad call or a pattern?
A pattern. The referee overturned his own decision on Delgado's handball after VAR review. He didn't do the same for Romero. That inconsistency is what made Boca angry—not just the outcome, but the logic behind it.
Could the VAR team have simply missed it?
That's possible, but it's almost worse. They'd been actively reviewing handballs all match. Missing one in the final moments, when the stakes were highest, suggests their focus broke exactly when it mattered most.