OURVARは審判の判定を「誤り」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。🙏
Germany scored to lead Paraguay 2-1 in extra time of a knockout tie. The goal was given and players were lined up for the restart when VAR recommended a review for a possible foul by Germany's Waldemar Anton on Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill at the preceding set piece. After a lengthy on-field review the goal was disallowed, and Germany went on to lose on penalties. This is a wrong decision — not because no contact occurred, but because the contact was marginal and mutual, the kind of jostling that happens at every corner. Under Law 12, getting in a goalkeeper's way and occupying space is not an offence; a foul requires actively holding or blocking him from playing the ball. The on-field referee saw the situation in real time and awarded the goal. VAR's role is to correct clear and obvious errors, not to re-referee marginal subjective calls — and an arguable goalkeeper-impeding situation that the referee deliberately allowed is, by definition, not a clear and obvious error. The intervention was therefore an overreach of the protocol. The decision would only be defensible if replays clearly showed Anton holding or pinning the keeper so he could not reach the ball; the available evidence — including the keeper initiating contact and falling himself — does not establish that. WRONG DECISION, medium confidence: a defensible goal incorrectly overturned by an out-of-remit VAR intervention.
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