OURVAR가 심판의 판정을 분석했습니다: 오심. 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. 🙏
Spain had a goal disallowed against Austria for a supposed foul on the goalkeeper at a set piece; VAR did not intervene, so the disallowance stood. This is a wrong decision. In a crowded box, players from both sides jumped for the same ball as the keeper, but there was no push, hold, or block on him — he mistimed his own jump, failed to punch clear, and Cucurella scored the rebound. Under Law 12 a goalkeeper is not untouchable and has no special protection from a fair challenge for the ball; it is only an offence if an opponent actively prevents him from playing or contesting it. A keeper who is fairly beaten, or who misjudges his own jump, has not been fouled. With no impediment, there is no foul and the goal should have counted. WRONG DECISION, medium confidence — the only counter is a stricter keeper-protection view that penalises attackers merely jumping near a keeper, which is not supported where there is no contact and the keeper's failure is his own.
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