OURVARは審判の判定を「正しい」と分析しました。あなたが投票するのは、OURVARの分析が正しいかどうかです。審判への投票ではありません。
OURVARの判定に同意しますか?
すべての投票がOURVARの精度向上に役立っています — そのご協力に心より感謝します。AIは完璧ではなく、皆さんの判定こそがケースごとの改善につながります。私たちが求めるVARを、一緒に作り上げていきましょう。🙏
The referee initially awarded Belgium a penalty for handball against New Zealand, but VAR recommended a review and the referee overturned it on the monitor, ruling the defender's arm was in a natural position. The final decision is correct. Under Law 12, a defender's accidental handball is a penalty only if the arm made the body "unnaturally bigger" or the act was deliberate. The defender was lunging to block with his arm out as a natural part of that motion — not extended beyond what the action required — and the shot was struck from close range, leaving minimal reaction time, which Law 12 treats as mitigation. So there was no punishable handball, and the original award was a clear-and-obvious error — the standard required for VAR to rescind a penalty already given. The referee confirming the overturn on his own monitor review is a strong endorsement of the no-handball conclusion. CORRECT DECISION, MEDIUM confidence — handball remains the most subjective area and VAR overturning a subjective call is only proper when the original is clearly wrong, which the close-range/natural-arm factors here support.
重要ポイント、引用されたIFAB競技規則、判定に至るまでのフレーム毎の解説をすべて見るには登録してください。
判定に異議を唱えよう。OURVARに「なぜ?」「肘の角度は?」「前例は?」と質問し、ケースを分析した同じモデルからIFAB規則に基づいた回答を受け取れます。Pro 25/月 · WC 50 · GB 150.
ディスカッション