Talk:List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies/Archive 1

message: Any reason why it's not on here? It was an incredibly controversial call, and a team was knocked out because of it. It deserves to be on here.--Akaces23 10:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I noticed it used to be here, but was removed. All sources I have seen have at least called it controversial.  The BBC match report: "But referee Merk added one more twist to the first half, with a controversial penalty award.  He penalised Onyewu, who appeared to win a clean header as Pimpong collapsed dramatically, and then allowed Appiah to dispatch the spot-kick."  The Financial Times: "The match turned on the worst of refereeing decisions. Germany’s Markus Merk was standing in a perfect position when USA defender Oguchi Onyewu won a header against the fabulously monikered Razak Pimpong. But inexplicably Merk blew for a penalty because of a non-existent push." - Jon Stockton 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now added this match to the article's Disputed Calls subsection, complete with the two quotes and references given above. -- Mareklug talk 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. - Jon Stockton 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA - Ghana PK 

message: * Please, follow the format used previously, and not use one of your own invention.
* Also, make sure you don't add decisions which were "disputed calls" to the "errors" section. Issues need to be discussed further before the are added to the errors section, so just add them to the disputed section at the moment.
* And whoever added the:
1.2.5 Argentina vs. Ivory Coast (Second Round)
1.2.6 France vs. South Korea (Second Round)
1.2.7 Brazil vs. Ghana (Second Round) 
1.2.8 France vs. Spain (Second Round)
 
...sections, make sure you take note of the above notes I've written. Also, get citations, otherwise they'll have to be deleted, which I'll do personally in 24 hours time if this still hasn't happened.
I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with constantly reformatting, recategorising and rewording poorly-done entries. If you're not 100% sure on how to follow the pre-described template, just post in the discussion, and one of the people who are devoting a lot of time to this section (including me, Tmorton166 and Hoopydink  just to name a couple) will do it for you. --Killfest2 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting, Citation and Selection 

message: A team captain is permitted to ask a referee for clarification of decisions during a game - is this actually true?  I have read in several sources that the only mention of the captain in the Laws says that he calls the coin toss, and that widely held beliefs that he has a special status with regard to talking to the ref are in fact not true - can anyone confirm? ChrisTheDude 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Wikipedia's own article on Captain (football) states: It is a common misconception that the captain has some sort of special status in the Laws of the Game. This is untrue: the only official function is to participate in the coin toss prior to kick-off (for choice of ends and to determine who kicks off first) and prior to a penalty shootout. Referees will sometimes talk to the captain of a side about the side's general behaviour, but this varies depending on the officiating style of the referee. ChrisTheDude 08:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not allow to question referee's decisions, but merely ask for clarification on why a decision was made (ie. what the foul was for - dangerous play etc.). Although this isn't explicitly written down in the Laws of the Game, it is considered implied, akin to Statutory Interpretation in many legal systems. --Killfest2 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "The captain of a team has no special status or privileges under the Laws of the Game but he has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of his team." - FIFA Laws of the Game (Located in Additional Instructions for the Referee). Also, under the Q&A for the game, It makes clear that the Captain may not dissent a referees decision. The Captain may occasionally be granted the privilage to discuss a call with the official, it is most definately not akin to Statutory Interpretation. KlisterOnSkis (Formerly:207.35.67.130 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent explanation, 207.35.67.130! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think that myself when copyeditiing the article earlier but was too lazy to do the donkey work you have done. Thank you. I've removed the reference to this non-existent "right". --Guinnog 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Can we also change the heading from "Right of Captain Nulled" to "Privilage of Captain"? I think it may be slightly more neutral. KlisterOnSkis 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain's rights

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there supposedly a FIFA directive encouraging referees to call games tighter and increase enforcement of the rules?  If so (and someone can find a credible source), perhaps it warrants inclusion as a possible explantion for the increased number of bookings/fouls (and help with NPOV).--128.205.153.176 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was, and there was also some sort of checklist or something...looking into it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Killfest2 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of Referees 

message: Why aren't <ref> and  tags being used to reference this article? Lets get it right and reference it properly now. MyNameIsNotBob 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a new Wikipedian, I ask: what's the difference? Is there a Wiki page which explains the usage and effects of these tags? Because I'm in the dark on this one... --Killfest2 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the two tags I am talking about are apples and oranges in a sense. However, you can find the descriptions on these at WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. Kind regards. MyNameIsNotBob 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *reads* Thanks for following up. --Killfest2 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><ref> and {{Cite}} tags</nowiki> 

message: Some standing needs to be made about the use of sources. Surely no source should be used that originates from the country that the issue is involved, unless quoting a comment made by a person (as it is harder to show bias when quoting). The ridiculous sourcing of the BBC opinion article for the ENG v POR game highlighted his issue, which needs to be addressed for future inclusions. --Killfest2 11:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing from Patriotic Media 

message: I think perhaps this deserves a mention, particularly the after-game arguement with Kewell and the referee , who was reported in the (australian) media as being under investigation by FIFA. (from memory) He supposedely told Kewell his world cup was over, indicating predetermination before FIFA had even considered the issue of misconduct by Kewell, of which he was later cleared.
I would also suggest the one sided penalty count of the game, but i think thats the bias talking. - DreamyBoat 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are mentioned in the Less Prominent Teams section. --Killfest2 09:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brasil V Australia 

message: Are we sure that Adriano was offsides?  I can't remember and I haven't seen any pictures or video. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if so, was he blatantly offsides?  I can't really see this as being an encyclopedic entry if it was subjective and labeled offsides by a newspaper columnist. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I watched the incident much later and thought he was blatantly offside. It is tricky as he was really badly offside, then moved a bit back when the ball wasn't passed to him but to someone else who was onside, but not enough to be onside again, and then later was given the ball from which he scored. There was a lot of movement, and I can see possibly why the ref missed it, but he was most certainly offside the entire time.203.185.253.18 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brasil v Ghana entry 

message: I was wondering if some editors of this article would weigh in on a discussion on the talk page of the Zidane article.  There is currently a discussion going on as to whether or not a picture of his receiving a red card in the finals is warranted, as it is the only on-field picture in the entire article.  As football fans who have spent their valuable time making sure that this article remains as NPOV as possible, your opinions would be welcome and very helpful in determining consensus.  hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a better image - see Here. I don't think it should be added unless it comes out that it was a result of a racial slur, at which point it should be added. Killfest2 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zidane 

message: Is anyone willing to write up the penalty that was given and the penalty that wasn't given to Malouda, or do the two balance each other out, to make an error free match?203.185.253.18 06:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Final 

message: Why isn't there anything about Italy and the US, wasn't there something about Eddie Pope or some other player getting an undeserved red card?
:Don't know, maybe because he deserved the red card? But maybe you are right, we should add a section and tell how he should have received the red card much earlier.
--Macgreco 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy vs US