Looking into user request

The user posted a message in Chinese about a football statement from a former referee regarding Milan not deserving a penalty, questioning the main referee's reasoning. Since they didn't ask a specific question, I should clarify their intent. I could ask whether they want a summary, context, analysis, or opinions. I'll want to carefully explain typical VAR protocols regarding penalties without making assumptions or detailing specific matches since browsing isn’t permitted.Clarifying user request

First, I should avoid jumping to conclusions and ask the user for more context about their comment: which match, what incident, and what the referee actually said. Since they shared a headline in Chinese, they might expect a summary. I could suggest structuring my response around potential penalty reasons, VAR intervention standards, and why the reasoning may be flawed. It’s crucial to provide a general analysis without fabricating details about any specific match.Structuring a response

I want to create a clear structure for my response. First, I’ll acknowledge the user's viewpoint about the Milan match penalty dispute, noting that the former referee’s conclusion seems correct, though the reasoning is flawed.

Then, I’ll outline the core aspects around penalties, like foul circumstances and VAR. I should give examples of situations, like handballs or trips, and clarify that VAR only intervenes for clear errors. I can suggest offering a detailed analysis based on specific match footage if needed.Clarifying penalty examples

I can include examples of potentially flawed reasons for a penalty call, like "contact with the ball doesn't mean no foul" and "arm position doesn’t automatically disqualify a handball." I should also point out correct reasons, such as "minimal contact" or "foul outside the box." Regarding VAR, it only corrects clear errors.

The user's message indicates the former referee believes Milan shouldn’t have been awarded a penalty while questioning the main referee's reasoning. I should clarify which match they're referring to for context. Let's compose a template for them!

这是在说：结论（不该判点/不该给点）是对的，但现场或赛后主裁解释用了不恰当的依据。要点可这样理解：

• 常见“错误理由”

  • “先碰到球就不犯规”→ 不成立；若动作鲁莽/跟随动作把对手放倒，仍可判犯规/点球。
  • “手臂回收了就不是手球”→ 不必然；关键看是否扩大身体面积、手臂位置是否合理、距离/反弹是否意外。
  • “对抗强度大就一定是犯规”→ 不必然；要看是否疏忽、鲁莽或使用过分力量。
  • “不是明显得分机会就不判点”→ 和点球无关；点球只取决于是否在禁区内发生了可判的犯规/手球。

• 常见“正确理由”（可能支撑不判点/改判）

  

  • 接触轻微且不足以构成犯规，或主要是进攻方先犯规/制造接触。
  • 主要接触点在禁区外（犯规地点判定在外）。
  • 手球：手/臂位置合理，或距离极近导致非故意、反弹不可预见；未明显扩大身体面积。
  • VAR维度：场上判罚并非“明显且显著错误”，VAR不应越位重判。

• 为什么会出现“结论对、理由错”

  • 主裁当下或赛后解释常用简化说法（如“先触球”），但IFAB规则要求评估整套动作的方式、后果与位置；用错依据会被前裁判挑出来。

如果你指的是某场具体的米兰比赛，给我对手/时间点或片段，我可以按最新IFAB规则逐条解释：是否构成犯规、犯规地点、VAR介入门槛，以及主裁解释哪一步站不住脚。