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。🙏
Germany appealed for a handball penalty against a Paraguay defender who slid in to block; the ball struck his arm, no penalty was given, and VAR did not intervene. This is the correct decision. Under Law 12, not every contact with the arm is handball. It is only an offence if the player handles deliberately, or if the ball hits an arm that has made the body "unnaturally bigger" — an arm held away from the body in a position that is NOT justifiable by the player's movement. Here the defender was in the act of sliding, and his arm was in a natural supporting position created by that slide, not propped out to expand his silhouette or block the ball. That makes the arm position a justifiable consequence of the body's movement, which the Laws explicitly exempt. There is also no sign of deliberate handling — the ball is struck at him at close range. So there is no offence, and the referee was right to play on and VAR right to stay out. CORRECT DECISION, high confidence — and a clean example of the "justifiable by body movement" exception that most penalty appeals ignore.
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