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。🙏
Just before half-time, trailing DR Congo 1-0, England's Harry Kane went down under a challenge from the onrushing goalkeeper near the edge of the box. The referee instantly signalled a dive and gave no penalty; VAR checked and took no action. This is the correct decision. The principle is the one fans most often get wrong: contact does not equal a penalty. A goalkeeper committing to a slide is not fouling unless he misses the ball and brings the attacker down — and here the contact was minimal and Kane was already falling, so it does not rise to a foul. Two details support the call: the referee, well-placed, read it live as going down too easily; and although he signalled a dive he did not caution Kane, which is the honest middle ground — not enough for a penalty, but not clear-cut simulation either, usually meaning some light contact existed. VAR checking and taking no action confirms there was no clear and obvious error to correct. CORRECT DECISION, medium confidence — with the caveat that if a replay clearly showed the keeper missing the ball and clipping Kane's leg to cause the fall, it would flip to a penalty (and a DOGSO question, most likely a yellow rather than red as the keeper was attempting to play the ball in his own area). 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