He watched the replay multiple times. Then disallowed the goal.
En una noche de Copa Libertadores en La Bombonera, un gol anulado tras casi cinco minutos de revisión encendió una disputa que trasciende el fútbol: la pregunta sobre si la tecnología y el juicio humano, combinados bajo presión, producen justicia o simplemente una versión más lenta del error. Conmebol respondió suspendiendo indefinidamente al árbitro colombiano Andrés Rojas y al VAR paraguayo Derlis López, reconociendo fallos graves en el ejercicio de sus funciones. La sanción habla de rendición de cuentas, pero el audio del VAR —lleno de dudas, no de mala fe— revela algo más incómodo: que la incertidumbre institucionalizada puede ser tan dañina como la parcialidad.
- Un gol de Boca que hizo estallar La Bombonera fue borrado del marcador tras una revisión de cuatro minutos y veinte segundos que dejó a jugadores y espectadores en un limbo de confusión creciente.
- El técnico Miguel Ángel Russo acusó veladamente a un exjugador de River de 'manejar la situación', mientras el defensor Izquierdoz describió un árbitro que pedía seguir jugando pero nunca lo permitía.
- El audio del VAR reveló no una conspiración sino algo más perturbador: un equipo de oficiales debatiendo durante minutos si un contacto 'podría desestabilizar' a un defensor, delegando la decisión final a un árbitro ya confundido.
- Conmebol suspendió indefinidamente a ambos oficiales, reemplazó al VAR para el siguiente partido y envió una señal de autoridad institucional, aunque sin responder cómo dos árbitros experimentados llegaron igualmente al error.
- Boca enfrenta la vuelta en Belo Horizonte sin el gol que pudo haber cambiado la serie, cargando una derrota moral que ninguna suspensión puede revertir.
En La Bombonera, Diego González anotó y el estadio explotó. Pero el festejo duró apenas un instante antes de que el juego se detuviera durante casi cinco minutos mientras el VAR deliberaba. Al final, el árbitro colombiano Andrés Rojas fue al monitor, revisó el contacto entre el delantero Briasco y el defensor Silva, y anuló el gol. El partido terminó 0-0.
El técnico de Boca, Miguel Ángel Russo, salió furioso a la conferencia de prensa, insinuando que Ignacio Fernández —exjugador de River, ahora en Mineiro— había influido en la situación. El defensor Izquierdoz fue más concreto: el árbitro les pedía seguir jugando, pero el juego nunca se reanudó. Cuando Rojas finalmente fue al monitor, Izquierdoz vio lo mismo que todos: un contacto, nada más.
Conmebol actuó con rapidez. El 14 de julio, la Comisión de Árbitros anunció la suspensión indefinida de Rojas y del VAR paraguayo Derlis López, calificando sus errores como graves. Días después, la confederación publicó el audio del VAR, que reveló algo más matizado que la parcialidad: un equipo dubitativo que no encontró infracción en el gol de González, pero que consideró que el contacto de Briasco 'podría desestabilizar' a Silva y le pidió a Rojas que interpretara él mismo la jugada. En segundos, Rojas revirtió su decisión.
La suspensión de dos árbitros experimentados envió un mensaje institucional. Pero el audio dejó en pie la pregunta más difícil: si no hubo mala intención, ¿cómo es posible que cuatro minutos de revisión tecnológica terminen en un error que cambia el rumbo de una eliminatoria continental?
On a July night at La Bombonera, Boca Juniors thought they had scored. Diego González collected a loose ball in the box and buried it past the Atlético Mineiro goalkeeper. The stadium erupted. Then nothing happened for four minutes and twenty seconds.
The VAR system malfunctioned. The intercommunication between the video booth and referee Andrés Rojas, a Colombian official, broke down. When it finally worked, Rojas walked to the monitor while players from both teams crowded around him, confused and increasingly agitated. He watched the replay multiple times from different angles. What he was looking for, apparently, was a foul by Boca forward Norberto Briasco on defender Nathan Silva in the buildup to the goal. Silva had jumped after contact with the ball and fallen to the ground. Rojas decided it was a push. He disallowed the goal. The match ended 0-0.
Boca's coach Miguel Ángel Russo was furious. He accused Ignacio Fernández, a former River Plate player now with Mineiro, of "managing the situation"—a pointed suggestion that the visiting team had somehow influenced the decision. Boca's defender Carlos Izquierdoz was more direct after the match, saying the referee had repeatedly told Mineiro's players to keep playing, to keep playing, to keep playing, yet they never restarted. Then Rojas went to the monitor anyway. Izquierdoz watched the replay on the screen like everyone else. He saw contact, he said, but nothing more than normal football. No push. No displacement. Yet the goal was gone.
Conmebol, the South American football confederation, took the matter seriously. On July 14, the Referees Commission announced it had technically analyzed the performance of Andrés Rojas and Derlis López, the Paraguayan VAR official. Both men, the commission concluded, had committed grave errors in the exercise of their duties. Specifically: the annulment of the goal. The punishment was indefinite suspension from all Conmebol competitions.
The confederation later released audio from the VAR booth. It revealed something more complicated than simple bias. The VAR team had debated for nearly five minutes. At first, they did not see an infraction by González on his goal. But regarding Briasco's contact with Silva, they decided it "could destabilize" the defender and asked Rojas to interpret it himself. Rojas went to the screen and within seconds announced his reversal: "Change of decision. Number 29 pushes him on the grass. I correct. Foul in favor of the white player. He pushes." The audio showed uncertainty, not malice—but uncertainty that cost Boca a goal in a knockout round of the continent's most important club competition.
Derlis López was removed from the VAR assignment for a Flamengo match scheduled for the following Wednesday. Diego Haro of Peru took his place. Boca prepared for a domestic league match against Unión de Santa Fe on Friday and a return leg against Mineiro in Belo Horizonte the following Tuesday. The suspension of two officials sent a message about accountability. But it also left unanswered the deeper question: how did two experienced referees, one at the monitor and one on the field, spend four minutes reviewing a play and still get it wrong?
Citações Notáveis
The referee told their players five times to keep playing, to keep playing, to keep playing, and they never restarted. Then he went to review the VAR anyway.— Boca defender Carlos Izquierdoz, after the match
Change of decision. Number 29 pushes him on the grass. I correct. Foul in favor of the white player.— Referee Andrés Rojas, from VAR audio
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did it take so long for them to make a decision on that goal?
The VAR system broke down. The communication between the booth and the referee stopped working. When it came back online, Rojas had to walk over to the monitor while everyone watched—players, coaches, thousands of people in the stadium. It became this strange, public deliberation.
And what were they actually debating about?
Whether Briasco fouled Silva. The VAR team wasn't even sure at first. The audio shows them going back and forth. They eventually decided the contact was significant enough that Rojas should look at it himself.
But Rojas had already seen it happen live, right?
Yes. He was there. But he went to the monitor anyway and changed his mind. That's what made people so angry—the sense that he was being talked into something he hadn't called on the field.
Did the audio prove there was bias?
Not exactly. It showed confusion and debate, not conspiracy. But that might be worse in some ways. It suggested the system itself wasn't working—that experienced officials couldn't agree on a straightforward call.
So suspending them indefinitely—was that the right call?
Conmebol said they made grave errors. Whether suspension fixes the problem or just removes the people who exposed it, that's a different question.