OURVAR가 심판의 판정을 분석했습니다: 오심 (콜 없음). 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. 🙏
In the 97th minute of a 2-2 knockout tie, Belgium's Mechele — already on a yellow card — blocked the Senegal goalkeeper from releasing the ball to launch a quick counter-attack. The referee showed no card, and VAR did not intervene; Belgium won in extra time. The correct call on the field was a second yellow and a sending-off: preventing the keeper's release, delaying the restart, and stopping a promising attack are all cautionable offences, and a second caution is a red. So the referee made a clear on-field error, with real consequences — Belgium should have finished the tie and played extra time a man down. However, VAR's non-intervention was correct and unavoidable. The 2026 rules did expand VAR's remit to second yellow cards, but only in one direction: VAR may overturn a second yellow that was wrongly awarded, and is expressly not permitted to recommend or add a second yellow that the referee did not show. Because no card was given, there was nothing for VAR to overturn, and adding the missed booking is outside its power. This is therefore a refereeing error that VAR had no authority to fix — not a VAR failure. WRONG DECISION (on-field), medium-high confidence.
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