联系我们

球客直播
电话:15300015591
传真:020-36868528
24小时业务直线:15300015591
联系人:杨先生
技术总工:15300015591
QQ:248333789
邮箱:contact@zb-qiukezhibo.com
地址:山西省 雨花区 解放大道82号
公司新闻 您当前位置: 新闻资讯 > 公司新闻 >
看法简评:
时间:2018-11-26 信息来源:admin 点击: 1041 加入收藏】【 字体:

Offering football law analysis

I think we shouldn't do a web search since it's unnecessary. Instead, I can break down laws like DOGSO, handball, or last-man tackles. The mention of [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;红牌上诉[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; hints at appealing a red card, while [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;范德芬的防守选择没有问题[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; might relate to an event in a Tottenham match. Appeals typically succeed only if there’s a clear error, with the standard of “clearly wrong” from the FA. I want to offer concise analysis and tailor my response to what the user is looking for.Offering concise analysis

I can provide a brief review, but I want to know what the user is interested in. Should I focus on the rules, tactical aspects, or is a translation of English tweets preferred? I'm keen to tailor my response to what they specifically want to see! If I can get that clarification, I can deliver exactly what they need. Let's keep this straightforward and engaging!

看法简评:

  • 红牌上诉确实很难:联盟/足协通常要求“明显且显著的误判”才会改判;若当值裁判+VAR已复核且属主观判定(如是否DOGSO、是否有控球机会、是否严重犯规),上诉成功率极低。
  • 若是DOGSO(阻止明显得分机会):裁判会看控球方向、进攻速度、与球门距离、其他防守者位置等四要素;只要其中多项支持“明显机会”,维持红牌的概率很高。
  • 核对判罚逻\n

  • 范德芬的防守选择“没有问题”的理解:从防线角度,优先原则通常是延缓、内收保护肋部和禁区中路、利用身体角度迫使对手到弱侧;若他按教科书站位且队友覆盖不到位或判罚尺度严格,被吹/被罚并不代表选择错误。
  • 战术细节可能是:他选择了“延缓+封内线/传球线路”,而非贸然上脚;在高速对抗中轻微接触被放大很常见,判罚走向更多取决于裁判标准而非决策本身。

需要我:

  1. 结合具体回合做逐帧战术拆解?
  2. 对照竞赛规则(DOGSO/手球/严重犯规)逐条核对判罚逻辑?
  3. 做英文翻译或写一段社媒简评?

    被罚并不代\n

    如果有视频片段或时间轴,我可以更精准地给出判罚与防守选择的判断。

上一篇:没有了
下一篇:水泥电阻的特点
友情链接

波纹电阻器