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。🙏
Deep in extra time at 2-2, Croatia scored what looked like a dramatic equaliser against Portugal. The referee gave the goal, but VAR disallowed it for offside after checking connected-ball sensor data — and the reason is a subtle but exact application of Law 11. The player who delivered the final cross (#15) was onside. However, a different Croatian player, in an offside position, brushed the ball as it passed him — a contact on his hair or the top of his head, invisible to the naked eye but registered by the sensor inside the match ball. Under Law 11, a player in an offside position who touches a ball played by a teammate is "interfering with play," and that is an offside offence. Crucially, any touch qualifies: it does not need to change the ball's direction, and it does not need to be deliberate. So the offence was complete the moment the offside player made contact, regardless of what happened afterwards or of #15 being onside. This is a factual, objective determination — like goal-line technology — not a subjective judgement: the sensor either detected a touch or it didn't, and it did. CORRECT DECISION, high confidence. Brutal for Croatia, erased by a touch no human could have seen, but exactly right.
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