OURVAR가 심판의 판정을 분석했습니다: 정확. 지금 투표는 심판이 아닌 OURVAR의 분석이 옳은지에 대한 것입니다.
OURVAR의 판정에 동의하시나요?
모든 투표는 OURVAR의 정확도를 높이는 데 도움이 됩니다 — 그리고 저희는 진심으로 감사드립니다. AI는 완벽하지 않으며, 여러분의 판단이 바로 사례 하나하나를 개선하는 원동력입니다. 우리 모두가 원하는 VAR을 함께 만들어가고 있습니다. 🙏
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.
모든 핵심 요인, 인용된 IFAB 법령 조항, 그리고 이 판정에 이른 프레임별 추론을 보려면 가입하세요.
판정에 의문을 제기하세요. "왜?", "팔꿈치 각도는?", "전례는?"을 OURVAR에 물어보고 — 사건을 분석한 동일한 모델로부터 IFAB 규정에 근거한 답을 받으세요. Pro 25/월 · WC 50 · GB 150.
토론