Get Plus

Sign in to baba News

One account across the web, iPhone and Android — your subscription follows it.

or use an email code

Search stories

Type at least two characters. Results come from every newsroom baba reads.

↑↓ to move · ↵ to open · esc to close

Sign in to baba News

Sign in to keep asking. News Plus removes the daily limit.

or use an email code

MakoSecurity

AI Referee Rules Beitar Jerusalem Was Denied a Penalty

Translated & summarized from Mako by baba

CenterNeutral tone

Hebrew · 2 newsrooms covering

An AI referee system has ruled that Beitar Jerusalem was denied a penalty kick in a match against Tiberias. The AI concluded with 95% certainty that a foul occurred in the penalty area, warranting a penalty and a yellow card. The on-field referee and VAR did not call the foul, leading to the development of the AI system to analyze such incidents.

The story in 5 lines · by baba

  • An AI referee determined Beitar Jerusalem was denied a penalty kick against Tiberias.
  • The AI ruled with 95% certainty that a foul occurred in the penalty area.
  • The AI also recommended a yellow card for the Tiberias player.
  • The on-field referee and VAR did not call the foul during the match.
  • The AI system was trained on FIFA rules to analyze game incidents.
AI Referee Rules Beitar Jerusalem Was Denied a Penalty
Editorial illustration generated by baba News, not a photograph of the event.

An artificial intelligence referee has determined that Beitar Jerusalem was wrongly denied a penalty kick during a recent match against Tiberias. The incident occurred when Beitar player Omer Atzili entered the penalty area and made contact with Tiberias player David Kalatins, leading to Atzili's fall. Beitar players and staff argued that the contact warranted a penalty, but the on-field referee, David Fuksman, and the VAR team did not intervene.

To address such contentious calls, a new AI referee system was developed, trained on FIFA rules and tested with various scenarios. This AI system analyzed the play and concluded with 95% certainty that a penalty should have been awarded, along with a yellow card for the foul. The AI explained that the referee's decision to continue play was incorrect, as a clear foul occurred within the box.

The AI's reasoning detailed that the defending player made contact with the attacking player's leg while attempting to play the ball, causing the fall without prior contact with the ball. Because the foul occurred during an attempt to play the ball and prevented a clear scoring opportunity inside the box, the appropriate disciplinary action, according to the AI, should have been a penalty and a yellow card.

MakoCentre · Neve Ilan

Sign in to baba News

Sign in to follow newsrooms, topics and people.

or use an email code

Sign in to baba News

Sign in to follow newsrooms, topics and people.

or use an email code

Mentioned

Full coverage · 3 outlets
First: Sport5 · 2h ago

The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.

Related stories · 4

Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.

Open the Wire