OURVAR가 심판의 판정을 분석했습니다: 정확. 지금 투표는 심판이 아닌 OURVAR의 분석이 옳은지에 대한 것입니다.
OURVAR의 판정에 동의하시나요?
Germany were awarded a clear penalty against Ecuador, but VAR overturned it and gave Ecuador a free kick instead, because Germany's Sané had fouled an Ecuador player in the build-up roughly 10-15 seconds earlier. The penalty itself being clear is irrelevant: under the VAR protocol, an attacking-team foul that occurs within the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) — the continuous possession phase that leads to a penalty or goal — is brought back, and the foul takes precedence over whatever the attacking team subsequently won. The APP is defined by continuous possession, not by elapsed time, so a 10-15s unbroken German possession from Sané's foul to the penalty keeps the foul inside the reviewable window. Because Sané committed a genuine foul and Germany retained possession throughout, VAR correctly rescinded the penalty and awarded Ecuador the free kick at the original offence. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence. (This is the mirror of the Argentina goal case: same APP rule, but there the build-up contact was NOT a foul so the goal stood; here it WAS a foul so the penalty is wiped.)
모든 핵심 요인, 인용된 IFAB 법령 조항, 그리고 이 판정에 이른 프레임별 추론을 보려면 가입하세요.
판정에 의문을 제기하세요. "왜?", "팔꿈치 각도는?", "전례는?"을 OURVAR에 물어보고 — 사건을 분석한 동일한 모델로부터 IFAB 규정에 근거한 답을 받으세요. Pro 25/월 · WC 50 · GB 150.
토론