OURVARは審判の判定を「誤り」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。🙏
The referee showed a yellow card in this incident, but based on the available frames, the more serious concern is what a Palmeiras (green kit) player did *after* the Flamengo player (CARRASCAL) went to ground. In frames 4 through 7, a Palmeiras player can be seen with their leg raised at height directly over the already-fallen CARRASCAL, in what is consistent with a stamp or dangerous late contact on a grounded opponent. Under the Laws of the Game, directing a raised foot toward a downed player is serious foul play — it uses excessive force and endangers safety — which carries a mandatory red card, not a yellow. The yellow that was shown appears to have addressed a different element of the incident (likely the Flamengo player's original challenge), leaving the more dangerous Palmeiras action unsanctioned or under-sanctioned. A clearer slow-motion angle of the contact point would confirm this conclusively, but the footage as shown suggests the referee got this wrong — a red card for the Palmeiras player was warranted.
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