Talk:Horacio Elizondo

message: It might be a good idea to include this referee's mistakes in his article but considering there are tons of mistakes that almost every referee makes, then all of them may have seperate sections for their own controveries parts in their articles. What I'm trying to say is controversy part should be reduced a lot and merged with the other parts of this article. 
Also, in this article "...some consider controversial occurred when Kim Nam-il had control of the ball, but the referee suddenly came up and took the ball away from him for unknown reason...." is not officially proven to be true at all and only totally based on koreans' opinion and consipiracy. I watched the match and there are some times when a referee accidentally bumps into the ball or even field players in soccer games. Right now, it just seems that korean's emotinal, angry complaint and whining has affected this article way too much that it's lost its neutrality.
Wikipedia is not a place to represent opinions of only one side.davidmj926 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've made some changes in this article in a way to remove some one-sided claims but left the basic stuff. Its neutrality is as important as providing info because it's an international website viewed by a lot of people from different countries.
I made it into a separate section because I thought the controversies were just too long to be included in the 2006 Fifa World Cup. mirageinred 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy section is far too long. We can't comment on every single referee's controversial decision of that match. All in all, the off-side interpretation might stay, but all other must be resumed as critics to other ruling including one doubtful penalty not given to Korea.
Korea’s coach agreed that the referee was right to allow the second goal to stand. 
http://worldcup.reuters.com/france/news/usnL24568011.html
Nzfooty 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've edited some parts of that paragraph. I think that would be enough to describe what basically happened in the match in a neutral way. David M. Jeong 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've erased the part stating handling fouls by Swiss players since the referee adjudged them as accidental and involuntary. We can see that referees do not award penalty kick every single time when handling occurs in football games as I mentioned above and therefore, it's not a distinctive or hugely controversial feature of only one particular match. David M. Jeong 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy part is too long 

message: This obviously might need semi-protecting now. Englishrose 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I thought everything would be over after Korea vs. Switzerland. mirageinred 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it can't be helped, one contraversial match is bound to get a lot of heated vandalism but two contraversial matches is bound to get even more. It has become an obvious target for vands and agree football fans. I've requested semi-protection. Englishrose 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep up the good work. mirageinred 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi Protection

message: Alan Hansen is one of the most recognised football pundits around, during match of the day when he analysed the sending off he noticed that the referee showed no signs that he was going to send Rooney off until the Portugese players surrounded him. I think this is relevant to the article as it shows that a very well known football pundit believes that the referee was pressurised into making the decision, thus should be included and show not be reversed by Isber. This is like ignoring a well known historians view on an article about Nazi Germany. Englishrose 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, this is not the place for speculation. No, what "some English fans" said is not a reliable source. No, the war over the Falklands is not an issue that is relevant. No, we don't need to insert speculations from every football commentator around. There are hundreds of commentators who believe Elizondo did the right thing, should this article include a quote from each and every one of them. No, and especially not commentators from Portugal or the UK since they are more likely to be biased. This is an article in an encyclopedia and it should focus on facts.Isber 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your article falls down at the point as Alan Hansen is NOT an England fan, he actually dislikes England as his is Scottish and thus a Scotland fan. Englishrose 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the fact that he's a very famous pundit makes his view worth noting. Also it is a fact in itself that the tv repleys referee made no inclination to book the player until the Portugal players surrounded him. Englishrose 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many famous pundits. Should each article on a referee include speculations from 10 pundits? 20? 30? 100? And on every major decision as well? The point is that outside the UK, Elizondo's conduct is widely applauded as one of the best in the tournament. The constant efforts to try to portray him as biased against the English is perhaps understandable from a human point of view (we all know how it feels when our team is sent out of a tournament) but that does not make it any more correct. Insert Alan Hansen's views on the Alan Hansen page. Isber 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Hansen's views are not relevant to the Alan Hansen page but they are to this. Would you ignore Orlando Figes views on the Lenin page? As for their being many famous pundits, he's probably the MOST famous or at least one of the most famous. Englishrose 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not ignore Figes's views on the Lenin page, no. I would ignore the views of Polish/Ukrainian member of the Czar's court, expressed a few days after the revolution. Look, I understand that you are upset, but the outcome of this game was not down to the referee. There is general agreement about the errors of Poll, and worldwide surprise at Ivanov and Medina. Elizondo is a different topic. We all know that there is a history of blaming the referee who is in charge of important games that England looses. During the past weekend, I've read ten times more articles about the English need of finding scapegoats than I've read about the referee. The guy responsible for sending England home is Ricardo, not Elizondo. Isber 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the comment about Alan Hansen would be more suitable on the Ronaldo page?Isber 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're making it out that I'm an upset England fan, just because I am English does not mean that my opinion is valid. It is perhaps alarming that I have disagreed with some of the opinions, please read some of my comments above. You however seem to be the opposite of what you portray me to be and are ignoring all valid points that go against the referee. Yes, Rooney should have been sent off but that does not mean that there are different prespectives about his actions, such as him showing no inclination to book Rooney until the Portugese players surrounding him or the failure to realise that Rooney was being fouled when he made that stamp, thus he could have prevented it. I have been on wikipedia a lot longer than you, so I am aware of WP:V and according to that the "According to the famous football pundit Alan Hansen" should stand as long as it has the "according to..." part. Englishrose 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Needless to say, your comments are just as valid regardless of your nationality and I have no doubts that you're a responsible contributor to Wikipedia. What I want to avoid is speculation. You have previously inserted comments about the Falklands and about speculations among English fans, so while I don't doubt your contributions, yes, it does seem as if you want to get back a bit at Elizondo or at least throw his neutrality into doubt. Saying that Elizondo would not have shown the red card if not pressured by Ronaldo is very speculative, and it does not become less speculative even if a famous pundit thinks so. Isber 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't actually me who inserted the Falklands comments, I merely rephrased them, they were first introduced here: . I merely reworded it:  so you are mistaken. Elizondo showed no signs of getting out the red card until he was surrounded by the Portugese players is a fact that Hansen commented on, look at the replays. Per WP:V, that statement is correct as long as it says "According to Alan Hansen". Englishrose 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the game, the replays during the game and I've seen replays afterwards. As you know if you're interested in football, and I assume you are, it is fairly common that referes first blow, indicate the free-kick (or penalty) and then produce the card. There is nothing to suggest that he would not have given Rooney the red card regardless of the Portuguese reaction. I have already stated that this is all speculative. Alan Hansen is speculating (or rather guessing), just as you and I do know. Why is it so important for you to have this speculation added to the page, what does it contribute to our understanding of Elizondo? Isber 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Hansen

message: So this page is still being used to try to clean Rooney. I don't think it's particularly relevant that Rooney doesn't agree with being sent off. It is extremely rare in football for a player to state after a red card that he really deserved to be sent off, so why is this mentioned? All in all, the Rooney incident is taking up too much space here. Rooney stamped Carvalho, intentionally or unintentionally, and was shown the red card. That's it. I don't see any need for a long story about it, particularly not when the intention is not to add to our information about Elizondo (this article is about him) but instead trying to whitewash Rooney. I'm leaving the Rooney part in for now as I don't want to see an edit war, but I suggest we remove it soon.Isber 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a significant incident. It's one of many decisions made by a referee. Poll showing three yellow cards was significant, Rooney being sent off for stamping at an opponent isn't. I guess we should include Carvalho's view as well here, right? I know you have references and I know that you there are no space requirements, but what does this contribute to the article? Nothing at all. Rooney went mad, stamped at an opponent and got sent off. Any referee in the world would have shown the red card. I don't see how one of the least controversial decisions Elizondo could have had to make during his career should be so much discussed. We've had references to the Falklands, to Alan Hansen, to the opinion of unidentified fans, to the possible actions of Ronaldo and now to the FA. Why?? Isber 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you just said that shows that you are completely biased in favour of the red card. I'm trying to see it even handed like those on the Wayne Rooney talk page, "Rooney went mad, stamped at an opponent and got sent off"- we don't know that for a fact. He COULD have done it intentionally but it is also just as likely that he naturally put his foot down. He did not look at Carvalho when he stepped on him, as discussed on the Wayne Rooney article this makes it more doubtful to whether he did it intentionally. Also, there is very little doubt that Rooney was fouled several times before the incident- it could have been a rection but then again they were tangling for the ball so close to his feet that it could have been natural. As I said before, I wasn't the first to mention the Falklands, I also said off the record I didn't beleive it- if you read my comments further up. Alan Hansen- famous football pundit. The media has portrayed Ronaldo of pressuring the referee, thus significant. Englishrose 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I do believe this is a significant incident as far as referees go.  There have been tons of articles about it, it's made the front page in England, and it's been a significant topic of discussion on television sports shows.  This is probably within the top few most reported-upon calls in the 2006 World Cup.  It's also going to be a topic of discussion if this referee ever is involved in a future England or Rooney game.  Beyond that, I would like to say that I don't think we should have incredibly strict standards about including referee calls, so long as NPOV is maintained.  I think that when you wikipedia a ref, you generally want to know what the guy is like in terms of calls.  How frequently does he tend to pull out cards?  Has he given out straight reds in high profile games?  Has he ever booked someone for diving?  What are his controversial calls?  What teams and players does he have a history with?  As long as we have wikipedia articles on the referees, I see no reason why we can't make them great articles that contain as much history about them as people are willing to write.  Of course, strict, strict attention must be paid to NPOV, and I know, understand and appreciate just how difficult that may be, but I think we ought to try.  More history will make the referee pages better and more useful.  I really think we should let in as much NPOV history on calls as can be supported by verifiable sources. Vickser 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not saying the article should state that it was "the right decision, full stop". It was a decision that the football world at large agreed with, including FIFA. So trying to paint the picture of a very controversial decision is even more wrong. That Rooney thought he shouldn't have been sent off is obvious, equally obvious is that some English papers will write so. And yes, your edits have at times made me think that you are biased. I don't have anything against information about Rooney disagreeing with the red card, but the article shouldn't give the impression that this was a very controversial call when it wasn't.Isber 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayne Rooney (aka Here we go again)

message: OK, let’s try and reach a consensus. Remove Rooney’s viewsand keep it.  Englishrose 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to my earlier comment, I think Rooney's version of the event is worth including, but it would be more useful to quote his description of the event rather than "gobsmacked". Should probably include a quote from Elizondo, "For me, it was a clear red card, so I didn't react to the Portuguese players" and the quote from Eriksson, "He told me he hit the other player and where he was hit so I can't complain about that", since he's someone who was hurt by the call but still agrees with it.Ytny 04:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the Eriksson quote, as I think it's useful and relevant. We already have the "Elizondo later confirmed that it was the kick on Carvalho that led to the red card" statement, with a link to back it up, so do we also need the "clear red card" line? If so, would we want to add it, or use it as a replacement for the existing comment? Mrph 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I look at it, I agree that the "clear red card" isn't really necessary. Thanks for adding he Eriksson quote though.Ytny 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Would you all think the following would present an appropriate balance?
"Elizondo was the referee in the England vs. Portugal quarter-final, which Portugal won 3-1 after penalties.  Elizondo gave yellow cards to Ricardo Carvalho, Petit, Owen Hargreaves and John Terry, as well as a straight red card to England's Wayne Rooney. Elizondo gave yellow cards to  Ricardo Carvalho and Petit of Portugal and to Owen Hargreaves and John Terry of England, as well as a straight red card to England's Wayne Rooney.
In the 62nd minute, Elizondo sent off Rooney after he appeared to stamp on Portugal's Ricardo Carvalho and then pushed Cristiano Ronaldo after the whistle had been blown. Elizondo later confirmed that it was the kick on Carvalho that led to the red card. Outside England, Elizondo and Rooney's red card has not been an issue, however Wayne Rooney has said he was “gobsmacked” by the decision and believes that the red card was unjustified, claiming that he had been trying to keep his balance and was not aware of Carvalho.  The English Football Association has supported Rooney, but England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson accepted Elizondo's decision, saying "I went to the referee to speak and he was 100 percent sure it was a red card. He told me he hit the other player and where he was hit so I can't complain about that".  
Although there has been much debate over the call in England, articles in Scandinavian and German papers after the game put the blame on Rooney, agreeing with the referee.  FIFA has requested an explanation from Rooney regarding his conduct during the game; this is standard practice when the referee reports violent conduct. Rooney is in danger of missing the first matches of the qualification to Euro 2008."
I'm thinking this keeps the fact that it's almost universally agreed outside of England that the red card was justified, while still preserving that Rooney strongly disagrees with the ref, and that the card would probably color future interaction between the two.  It also contains the important facts of the game straight away in the first paragraph.  Please feel free to suggest changes to this draft.  I really hope we can all work together to get this right. Vickser 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty happy with that text, in regards to "Scandinavian and German papers after the game put the blame on Rooney", Dutch papers have made out that the referee sent Rooney off due to being pressurised by the Portugese players. Although, they are still reeling over their match where the Portugese players tricked the referee into giving yellows and reds (that record breaking match), I still think it's relevant that some other countries disagree with the red card. I just thought I'd point that out. Englishrose 15:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Elizondo gave yellow cards to  Ricardo Carvalho and Petit of Portugal and to Owen Hargreaves and John Terry of England"? Or some less clunky way of indicating the countries of the players. J•A•K 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good suggestion. I just put it in above.  Vickser 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little wary of the 'but' with regard to Sven - it sounds a little bit as if he's not supporting Rooney. I don't know what his actual opinion is, but in public he's tried not to take sides... saying that Rooney has said it wasn't intentional while agreeing that Elizondo acted appropriately. Purely IMHO, of course. Mrph 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe "The English Football Association has supported Rooney, while England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson has deferred to Elizondo, saying . . ."?  Vickser 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy with the version above. A minor detail but we can be more specific about how the FA will support Rooney, but I guess we'll have to wait until FIFA actually decides on how to discipline him.Ytny 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, then, I think that sounds like consensus.  I'll switch the but-while thing, source it up and put it in.  I've expanded on the the first two clashes and am going to put more stats in for this game and the South Korea-Switzerland one.  With Elizondo in charge of the final, I think this page is going to get a lot of hits in the next few days. Vickser 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Thanks for the work, Vickser. --Zambaccian 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Text

message: After this sentence:
:According to some commentators and media, Lee Ho's action was not a mere deflection but an intentional move, what would make the offside void, supporting Elizondo's decision.
...this one:
:However, the official FIFA rules indicate that the offside decision was supposed to be given, even if Lee Ho's actions were adjudged to have been an accidental deflection."Switzerland 2 South Korea 0" - Professional Footballers Association Gaining advantage - Offside Offence - Page 12
...doesn't make any sense. If there was no offside violation because the deflection was intentional, then it doesn't matter what the official rules say about accidental deflections. --89.176.54.194 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what some commentators claim so it's not a fact, so the sentence should stay 68.80.241.179 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence 

message: Okay, maybe there is a reasonable rationale for leaving the cards/fouls in... but why offsides? Referees very rarely have anything to do with offside calls (except the one notable incident in Switzerland v. South Korea, which should be mentioned). Offside calls depend on either: a good offside trap, badly timed forward runs, or sight-impaired linesmen. Rarely is it relevant to mention routine offside calls in a referee's article. ugen64 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: offsides

message: It's been almost six years now, but the section on the England/Portugal game and the red card is still slanted. In particular, "He was criticised for his performances from neutrals and England fans" is a classic weasel statement that, while strictly being true, implies something that is not the case. This is present to some extent in other sections, but not to as great an extent. The sections on the 2006 WC should either be excised or rewritten in a way that removes the slant
Weygander (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV