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。🙏
In the 28th minute with Argentina leading Jordan 1-0, the referee awarded Jordan a penalty for a high foot in the box and confirmed it after a VAR on-field review. The decision is correct. The key distinction in Law 12: a high foot near an opponent with NO contact is "playing in a dangerous manner" — punished only by an indirect free kick, never a penalty. But the moment the raised boot makes CONTACT with an opponent, it stops being dangerous play and becomes a kicking offence, which is a direct-free-kick foul — and a penalty kick when it happens inside the penalty area. Here the Argentine defender's boot caught a Jordan player who was contesting the ball, so the contact is what elevates it from a dangerous-play indirect free kick to a genuine penalty. The very fact a penalty (not an indirect free kick) was awarded reflects that the officials judged real contact, and the high, studs-up nature of the challenge makes it at least reckless. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence — penalty correctly given, and the VAR/OFR mechanism was used exactly as intended.
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