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。🙏
At 1-1 in the 78th minute, Ivory Coast's #19 went down between two Norway defenders in the penalty area and appealed for a spot-kick. No penalty was given. This is the correct decision. The key principle is one fans most often get wrong: contact does not equal a penalty. A defender making some contact is not a foul unless that contact is a careless or reckless challenge that actually causes the fall. Here the contact, if any, was minimal, and the attacker went to ground easily rather than being clearly brought down. That is "not enough" for a penalty. It also isn't a clear case of simulation worth a caution, because there does appear to be some contact — it simply doesn't rise to a foul. And because the on-field referee judged no penalty in a genuinely marginal situation, it is not a clear and obvious error, so VAR was right not to intervene. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — with the caveat that if a replay clearly showed a defender clipping his leg and causing the fall, it would flip to a penalty. On the available angles, it does not.
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