For this case, the members of the evaluation team unanimously agreed that from the available video, there was no evidence of foul play in the defensive actions of Changchun's No. 3, and that the referee's position and angle of observation at the time were so good that they should have been supported in their decision. Therefore, the referee's decision not to call a foul was correct.
Case 5: Beijing Rainbow Restoration Women's Soccer Team vs Changchun Mass Excellent Women's Soccer Team in the fifth round of the Women's Super League. In the 82nd minute of the match, Changchun player #2 touched the ball with his arm in the penalty area. The referee was not penalized.
For this case, the members of the judging team unanimously agreed that the ball touched the arm of Evergreen's player No. 2 after he initiated the kick and the ball was touched by the rebound, and the arm was in a reasonable position for the current body movement, rather than a foul for handball. The referee's decision that there was no foul was correct.
Case 6: Beijing Rainbow Restoration Women's Soccer Team vs Changchun Mass Excellent Women's Soccer Team in the fifth round of the Women's Super League. In the 90th +5th minute of the match, Changchun player #25 and Beijing player #24 competed in the penalty area of Changchun and fell to the ground. The referee was not penalized.
For this case, the majority of the members of the evaluation team believed that, from the available video, the physical contact between the two sides during the competition was in the normal category, and the actions of the members of the Evergreen defensive team did not constitute a foul. The referee's decision that there was no foul was correct.
Seventh example: Heilongjiang Bingcheng vs Shanghai Jiading Huilong in the eighth round of the China First Division League. In the 69th minute of the match, Heilongjiang Bingcheng No.22 fouled Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.7. Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.7 then hit Heilongjiang No.22. The referee called a foul on Heilongjiang 22 and showed him a yellow card. In addition, he also showed a red card to Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.7 for violent behavior and fined him.
For this case, the members of the panel agreed that the behavior of Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.7 was not an act of violence, and both players should be given a yellow card warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. The referee's decision to show a yellow card to Heilongjiang Bingcheng No.22 was correct and the decision to show a red card to Shanghai Jiading No.7 was wrong.
Eighth example:Heilongjiang Bingcheng vs Shanghai Jiading Huilong in the eighth round of the China First Division League. In the 31st minute of the match, Shanghai Jiading Huilong won a corner kick. After the corner kick was awarded, Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.7 took a reverse kick. The ball contacted a player of Heilongjiang Bingcheng behind him and rebounded to the ground, the referee was not penalized.
For this case, the majority of the panelists felt that the available video did not show the details of the ball coming into contact with the Heilongjiang Bingcheng defense player. From the current situation, the Heilongjiang Bingcheng player did not commit a handball foul and the referee's decision of no foul should be upheld.
Example 9: Heilongjiang Bingcheng vs Shanghai Jiading Huilong in the eighth round of the China First Division League. In the 23rd minute of the match, Heilongjiang Bingcheng was awarded a corner kick. After the corner kick was sent out, the ball landed on the ground and bounced back, and there was body contact with Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.10. The referee penalized Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.10 for a handball foul and awarded a penalty kick.
For this case, the jury members unanimously agreed that from the available video, the ball did not contact the arm of Shanghai Jiading Huilong No.10 player and did not constitute a handball foul. The referee's on-the-spot decision of handball foul and penalty kick was wrong.
