Talk:AFL siren controversy

message: Let's not dilly-dally on the title. We've got three footy fans here - let's make a decision.
AFL siren controversy 2006
*support (second preference). Snottygobble 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title again

message: Seems a little long-winded, should we move the rules to a new article and then simply link to the relevant clauses? Rogerthat Talk 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Nothing worse than having to flip between two or more articles when you're trying to get info on something. Keep it all together. Reyk YO! 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant rules

message: Good coverage, nice well-rounded article. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Reyk and Pfctdayelise.  There is just one point in the article where maybe the flow is lost a little, that is, just before the sub-heading Final minute controversy.  The paragraph before mentions the Sainters getting 7 of the next nine goals to get within a point, and then this fact is mentioned again in the next paragraph.  I understand the latter is going into more detail and describing the events in the last minute of play, but it does raise doubts about whether the paragraph before fits in. (small observation only and I didn't want to play around with it)  Otherwise, I too think it's pretty good.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: I'm wondering whether public reaction could/should be added to the article to detail how important the result was to the Fremantle fans in WA. Before the AFL made their decision to overturn the result, some Freo fans had graffiti'd the actual result on Fremantle Oval's scoreboard to say "Fremantle 14.10.94 St. Kilda 13.15.93" in white paint. The club left it up there as the Dockers trained on the ground for the day, and was mentioned in the news. Also, the suspected reaction if the result had've happened at Subiaco instead of Launceston would've been nothing short of a stadium riot. I can type up a proper paragraph for this unless anyone has any objections. Orichalcon 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would have been interesting to see if there was a riot, I seem to remember that game where the black-out occured and it got a little crazy.--Dacium 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Reaction 

message: I have a good idea for a parody of the incident: A hotel near Aurora Stadium called the Sirengate hotel. A list of features: Scott Gall 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirengate Hotel 

message: Someone keeps adding the rule on exceeding the allowable number of players on the field. This never had anything to do with it. Why is it being added? Hesperian 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it has some vague relevance (i.e. that extra players were on the ground when the game had not been officially finished by umpires), it hardly seems important. After all, players and officials generally wander onto the ground from the bench when there is a kick for goal after the siren, and nobody bothers calling for a line-up because their presence is inconsequential. Now, had Dockers players flooded onto the ground, congregated in the forwardline, then realised that the game was continuing and tried to defend, there would be some merit. However, the captain has to explicitly ask for a line-up in order to get the team's score cancelled - and the commission would not have been able to rule on this because, unlike the timekeeper error, it was not external to the game. Had the game been ruled a draw, then there would have been the potential for the Dockers to be fined (as happened to the Western Bulldogs when they stuffed up an interchange last year) - and media people did comment on this, and this should be mentioned (I will slot in a paragraph). However, the extreme case of score cancellation was never on the agenda, hence stop adding it!Aspirex 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of players on the field

message: The Teams section lists Luke Ball as the St Kilda Captain, while later in the article (where the confrontation between Chris Connolly and Lenny Hayes is mentioned), Hayes is stated to be the captain. Could somebody who knows which is correct make the necessary adjustments. Aspirex 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints Captain

message: In an edit summary, His Holiness The Pope questions
:"Is the Swans 19th man really a similar incident? Nothing to do with "siren controversy", just similar in speculation about reversing a result (which didn't happen)".
Since it is kinda hard to reply with an edit summary of my own, I'll bring this here.
I think that the defining character of this incident is the occurrence of a breach of the rules and/or playing regulations that places the legitimacy of the match result in doubt. As such, I think the 19th man incident is quite similar. In particular, I think it more similar than the NTFL and NRL examples.
But I have no particular attachment to my edit, or indeed the entire Similar incidents section, so by all mean revert away if you think it unsuitable.
Hesperian 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about using the edit summary instead of bringing it here in the first place.  I do now understand your view, it just took me a while to work out why it was listed as a similar incident.  Maybe we need to separate the list into siren incidents and result challenge incidents.  Any other result challenges you can think of? The-Pope (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, mate. If "siren incidents" means matches where the result hinges on whether a score was kicked, or a mark taken, before or after the final siren, then those incidents are a dime a dozen, and I think them not particularly interesting or encyclopedic. The rules of the game state that a quarter ends when the umpire hears the siren, not when the siren sounds, not when the umpire calls an end to play. The umpire's decision is always allowed to stand in these situations, and the result is uncontroversial, except to the fans of the losing team, and they soon forget. Hesperian 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is titled "Similar Incidents", not "Similar Incidents in Australia". Should a similar incident that happened in American football between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University in 2001 be added? The final second of the clock seemed to last for more than a second, thus allowing MSU to run one final play in which they scored the winning points? I'm pretty sure the clock operator (an MSU employee, as this happened at MSU) has admitted that there was probably a mistake made, but the result was never overturned. It was doubly bad for Michigan fans (like myself) in that the referees missed an infraction by MSU on the final play that would have nullified the winning points, regardless of the clock. Ypsidan (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if it was notable. Hesperian 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not on either count. The rules of gridiron are nothing like either rugby or football. Adding it is not appropriate. I also severely question it's notability given that it wasn't a major game either in league (ie NFL) or in season (which is why the STJFL is notable - it was a grand final AND it got mainstream media coverage which I am still trying to locate). AFL-Cool (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to bother putting it back, mostly because every other event listed happened in Australia. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss the point. It seems very analogous. The rules difference is true but unimportant. A clock is a clock in Australia, the US, or Mars. This might not be known to Australians, but there are many people (myself included) who hold College football in higher esteem than NFL football - regardless of the fact that the NFL is more publicised overseas. It was an important game in season too, mostly because Michigan was ranked #6 in the country coming in (out of over 100 teams) and had a legitimate shot at a title had they won. People in this state will never forget it. The game result also changed a facet of the rules forever. The fact that it was just a regular season game is of course valid, however. Ypsidan (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar incidents

message: * 7 May 2008: Material added to article by AFL-Cool.
* 5 August 2008, 10:36: Removed as non-notable by 124.168.195.104.
* 5 August 2008, 11:42: Restored by AFL-Cool.
* 5 August 2008, 13:15: Removed as non-notable by The-Pope.
* 6 August 2008, 13:22: Restored by AFL-Cool.
* 6 August 2008, 15:58: Removed as non-notable by The-Pope.
* 6 August 2008, 16:02: Restored by The-Pope, with request for reliable source.
* 30 November 2008, 7:42: Removed as non-notable by Jevansen.
* 30 November 2008, 21:23: Restored by AFL-Cool, with claim that it was covered by mainstream Melbourne media.
* 25 April 2009, 4:15: Removed as non-notable and unsourced by Jevansen.
* 26 April 2009, 9:38: Restored by AFL-Cool.
* 27 April 2009, 4:31: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool that he intends to remove it as unsourced, seeing as AFL-Cool has had since November to provide a source, and hasn't done so.
* 27 April 2009, 4:33: Removed again by Jevansen.
* 27 April 2009, 5:57: Hesperian indicates agreement with Jevansen that AFL-Cool has had plenty of time to provide a source, and it should now be removed as unsourced.
* 27 April 2009, 12:28: AFL-Cool tells Hesperian that it is notable but sourcing would require a visit to the state library.
* 27 April 2009, 12:29: AFL-Cool says the same thing to Jevansen, adding "I'm putting it back and it stays".
* 27 April 2009, 12:30: Restored by AFL-Cool.
* 27 April 2009, 12:40: AFL-Cool announces on talk page "Once and for all, this note stays." 
* 27 April 2009, 12:42: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool that the material shouldn't be included until a reference is provided.
* 27 April 2009, 12:43: AFL-Cool tells Jevansen that he will consider further removal vandalism.
* 27 April 2009, 12:59: Removed as unsourced by Hesperian.
* 27 April 2009, 13:03: Hesperian quotes the relevant text from Wikipedia:Verifiability on the talk page.
* 27 April 2009, 13:09: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool to calm down, and reiterates that the material shouldn't be included until a reference is provided.
* 28 April 2009, 3:37: Restored by AFL-Cool.
* 28 April 2009, 3:40: AFL-Cool declares that he is being "bullied" by a "bullying admin", and threatens/offers to escalate.
* 28 April 2009, 4:00: Removed again by Hesperian.
: The matter is now closed. An anonymous IP has provided two sources from the Mercury - one of which was on the front page. That should eliminate any doubts to notability, and therefore this matter should be closed. I don't think we even need the Melbourne ref now.
: And baiting in edit summaries isn't right either, Hesperian. AFL-Cool 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I alone in thinking that the first ever post by an Anon-IP shouldn't be taken on face value?   I hope that it was a genuine good samaritan and you aren't making matters worse Mr Cool.  Use of sockpuppets aren't allowed and I think Admins can cross reference IPs to accounts.  Interestingly, the geo-locate on that IP puts it in NSW.  Does SLV mean State Library of Victoria?  Do Next G IPs all route through NSW - I'm on Next G in WA and that service puts me in NSW too, so it's likely that it was posted from a mobile broadband account.  Still, I'm not convinced yet - why would an anon-IP even be aware of this dispute, let alone find the answer and post it without logging in.  If it was you or your mate who found it, then next time get him to take a photo of the front page with his phone and upload it somewhere!  If it was an established editor, then come clean and say who you are, so we can decide if you are a reputable source. The-Pope (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't ask me, Pope. I have no idea. There could be a number of possibilities. I was nowhere near the library today and haven't been for ages. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your problem. Maybe the Anon will see this and respond? Who knows? Don't make this more than it seems even though it might on the face. Coincidence is all I can think of at worst. But it helped even if there was no photo. I did look up the headlines and they spat back nothing so I guess the Mercury doesn't keep archives of it's stories, or if they do you have to pay for it. All we can do is wait and see if the Anon comes back. Or maybe someone else. Heck, I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth even if it was an Anon. AFL-Cool 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified using Factiva. Hesperian 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Has been addressed several times, a non-notable children's match.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.102.49 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The verification by Hesperian above says it's notable. And you didn't answer the other part.203.15.226.132 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of dispute

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504192143/http://afl.com.au:80/default.asp?pg=news to http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=262773
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619192928/http://www.theage.com.au:80/realfooty/news/afl/afl-awards-points-to-fremantle/2006/05/03/1146335789527.html to http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/afl-awards-points-to-fremantle/2006/05/03/1146335789527.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706100136/http://www.150years.com.au/150Moments/Vote/tabid/11389/Default.aspx?page116446=14 to http://150years.com.au/150Moments/Vote/tabid/11389/Default.aspx?page116446=14
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504192143/http://afl.com.au:80/default.asp?pg=news to http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=262773
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706100145/http://www.150years.com.au/Home/Article/tabid/11376/Default.aspx?newsId=64296 to http://150years.com.au/Home/Article/tabid/11376/Default.aspx?newsId=64296
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please add the following to the section "Similar incidents";
* The 2007 STJFL (Southern Tasmanian Junior FL) Under 14 Grand Final ended in almost exactly the same way. Sorell was leading Lauderdale by three points when the siren blew, but the umpires failed to hear it and the timekeepers failed to keep the siren going as what happened in Launceston. In the ensuing play, a set shot from Lauderdale fell short and was marked by another Lauderdale player, who kicked a goal. Lauderdale were ruled to have won the game by three points and were presented with the premiership. Sorell lodged a protest, and the STJFL declared the match a draw and awarded the premiership jointly to both teams.
This incident is notable because it was on the front page of a major Australian daily newspaper. The fact that it was a junior game is irrelevant. It passes WP:N and should be included. 2001:8003:591D:2400:6DE1:3F80:5072:B36D (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: AFL siren controversy →  – We're seventeen years on, and Sirengate is without doubt the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident; it's unambiguous and clearly understood within football circles. The AFL siren controversy name, by comparison, really only exists here on Wikipedia; and the talk history indicates that this name was chosen as a neutral-sounding compromise name on the third day after the game was played, at which point the 'sirengate' nickname was newly coined and not yet in widespread use, leading the editors at the time to feel rightly uneasy about its use - but I think we're well past that being a valid concern. Sirengate is better name in any case, as the AFL siren controversy name does a poorer job of indicating that this is a description of a specific incident/game than a general controversy about sirens. Aspirex (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Sirengate is a terrible name. Using an American idiom in connection with Australian football just sounds like a commentator trying to be cool and clever. That's his job. Can you provide any evidence that others have used that name for the incident during the past sixteen years? Further, as I read the article, I kept thinking "Why on earth does this article even exist?" It's classic sports trivia. NOT Wikipedia-worthy material. I'd be leaning towards deleting the article entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple Google searches easily show use of Sirengate across multiple primary and secondary sources, newspapers, the ABC and so on; and the use of 'AFL siren controversy' almost exclusively in WP mirror sites. Aspirex (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Support – a cursory search indicates that it's the name commonly used to refer to the incident, including by the AFL in some cases (e.g. ). Whilst "-gate" is generally a word to avoid, there's no prohibition against its use if wide usage can be ascertained. (Indeed, on the same principle, I think that 2007 Formula One espionage controversy should be at Spygate (Formula 1) and Renault Formula One crash controversy should be at Crashgate.) Sceptre (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. I regard such language as gruesome and no-encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per WP:POVNAME, which advises us to avoid colloquialisms like these even when they are the common name; the given example of a title we would avoid is Antennagate, which seems directly relevant to this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2023