Talk:Stuart Dickinson

message: Can the idiots who claim that he 'killed Tates (sic) try' stop trying to vandalise this page? Firstly, it wasn't even Tait's try, and secondly it was legitimately disallowed. (Jpgrantham 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the point of the toe of the boot touches the inside edge of the line, as appears to be the case in the BBC photo, the TMO has to rule it in touch. You can look at the photo on the website and argue that the angle and the resolution leave some room for doubt. The point however is that the BBC published this photo next to the statement "the television match official correctly ruled he had just put a foot in touch". One can therefore conclude that the BBC's journalist and editors, who have access to hi-res video of the incident, have looked at it and consider that the foot was in touch. Therefore, citing the BBC as authority, the integrity of Wikipedia is not compromised. Rexparry sydney 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last point is right in the sense that the referee asks the TMO "Is there any reason that a try should not be awarded?" Phrased this way, it has to be conclusive to the TMO that there is a reason, and doubt should lead to the answer "no" to the referee's question. I think this is the only way that a TMO can give benefit of the doubt in relation to being in touch, as the rugby union laws do not provide for it (though I can't rule out that other IRB guidelines may do so). On another matter, now that you can see a video (link provided below) I'm sure you'd want to withdraw your first two sentences. Rexparry sydney 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The footnote, as it's currently written says "The photo with the caption "England went desperately close through winger Mark Cueto" is three-quarters of the way down the page. Other photos (example) show that a fraction of a second later, Cueto lifted his foot off the line." This is not written neutrally. All it really implies is that whomever has edited the article cannot find a photo of Cueto with his foot in touch! That doesn't mean his foot wasn't in touch; just that there is not a photo available of it. I'm going to reward it in a tone that doesn't imply otherwise. - Shudde talk 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls see your talk page. The final warning was not of course for starting that heading. Rexparry sydney 00:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect -- the laws of rugby union do not say that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team. Doubt in relation to game situations is mentioned in the laws only three times, with benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team in two cases (unplayable ball at the breakdown, and who gets the throw at a lineout). The third case relates to which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal: benefit of the doubt is shared, a try is not scored (as it would be in rugby league where the law specifically states that simultaneous grounding results in a try), but the attacking team gets another chance with the put-in to a 5 m scrum, so you could say benefit of the doubt is shared. There's no mention of doubt in relation to being in touch. You can't conclude that the laws favour the defending team.Rexparry sydney 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final

message: The Rugby Heaven website (part of the Sydney Morning Herald) mentions this article in "Wikipedia protects Stu Dickinson's profile". The journos are making some progress in understanding the democratic nature of Wikipedia, after the same media outlet referred to the Wayne Barnes article as being "hacked" when it was vandalised. (Incidentally, lest anyone thinks Wikipedia violated copyright, Rugby Heaven is wrong to refer to the article's "use of a BBC photo": the article only linked to a BBC pages with photos.) Rexparry sydney 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in the media