![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The comment calls for a section about a "disallowed goal", presumably Skrtel's goal line clearance, and subsequent calls for goal line technology. I have not heard this moment called controversial by neutrals, so I'm going to delete this section. If someone has a neutral source for these claims, they can add it back into the article. (My opinion, FWIW: no available replay clearly shows the ball over the line, unlike Lampard's disallowed goal. Using NFL-style replay guidelines, there is no evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. If every replay and photo supports the referee, there's nothing controversial about the incident) -- 74.57.177.192 ( talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I watched the game and read reports afterwards - I don't remember anyone asserting that the ball had crossed the line at all. Ubertoaster ( talk) 10:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Also there are two penalties, from Fabio Coentrao to Fernando Torres and from Ricardo Carvalho to Fernando Llorente; and finally an incredible laissez faire to Pepe's harsh gamestyle. I conclude that the corresponding match section is biased and wrong as it suggests that Portugal was eliminated because of referee's influence, not being true; if such section about controversies is included it should include all controversies. Aiarakoa ( talk) 10:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Another biased section. Step by step:
Another section that suggests that Spain may have been favoured, that the result was conditioned by the referee's decisions. Suming the penalties not conceded during the 4 played matches (suffered by Silva, Villa, Torres, Llorente, etc), and the red cards not shown to Grichting (against Switzerland) and Ponce (against Chile), one thinks that such sections doesn't meet at all the expectable fairness. Aiarakoa ( talk) 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Suarez's handball during stoppage time of extra time should be mentioned. It is the only reason that Uruguay had a chance to (and did) advance. The referees decision certainly wasn't controversial, but the play was. 69.178.104.87 ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a section. Not a refereeing controversy but certainly an element of gamesmanship. Francium12 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that someone has made two separate paragraphs, one for "Errors" and one for "Disputed Decisions", the former for refereeing errors, the other for what may amount to people just complaining because they didn't get the result they wanted.
Certainly this separation is both POV and OR? For instance, the referee/linesman who made a call, would believe that their call was justified. And, as shown by the frequent removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy, "believing is seeing". I watched England-Germany and Italy-Slovakia, and if anything, the Italy ball was far more convincingly over the line than Lampard's shot. However, just because the Anglocentric media didn't report it that way, and the current anti-Italian bias is in full-force, not to mention the Slovakian defender is a a star of a Premiership club, we read about how it was cleared "off the line", while Lampard, hero of Chelsea and England, was "robbed".
The central point however is that having one ditor decide which are "Errors" and which merely "Disputed Decisions" is obviously POV. Any thoughts/suggestions? 41.132.229.210 ( talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is acceptable or not, but on another discussion page here the reason for the removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy is "We saw the ball not cross the line"(OR and POV) and anything besides a few key moments(including Lampard) is "the rest of the crap". Certainly that should not be criteria for inclusion or exclusion? 41.132.229.210 ( talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Many people have come to accept that the second goal of Netherlands was offside, which the referee didn't see. It was a turning point in the game and another referee mistake that should be noted in the article. - Sacchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.69.66 ( talk) 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Are the match controversies in any particular order? It does seem to by round, alphabetically, or in chronological order. I suggest we order by phase first (i.e. Group stage, Round of 16, Quarter-finals, etc.) and then alphabetically by first team listed (then by second team listed if there happens to be any controversies with the same lead team in the same stage). E.g. (where Team x is the name of a country):
Is there any sources about how Spain encroached in the Paraguay penalty shot? Kingjeff ( talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe Paraguay had a legitimate goal disallowed and ruled as offside even though Oscar Cardozo did not touch the ball before it went to the goalscorer, meaning the play was onside. This meant that if the goal was allowed to stand and the score remained thus then the match would have gone into extra-time and perhaps even penalties. There is therefore no judging who would have therefore won the game had the goal stood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well folks, the World cup is over and it's time to start whittling this down to be more like an encyclopedia article. Only incidents which generated lasting and severe repercussions need be dealt with here; every single "we-wuz-robbed" article from a sports website doesn't need to be reflected here. Any takers? -- John ( talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to immediately respond to the above comment by saying that near enough all incidents mentioned should be listed on the page. The article for the controversies of the 2006 World Cup is much larger than the one for the 2010 World Cup, even though there were more "controversial" decisions in 2010. I do believe that all the incidents warrant a section but need to be written in an impartial manner, which may be the problem. A suggestion would be to categorize the incidents in exactly the same way the page for the 2006 World Cup does, actual controversies and then disputed decisions. The incidents on this discussion page should perhaps be mentioned on a "disputed decisions" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 ( talk) 21:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Spain's encroachment of Paraguay's penalty shot is worth mentioning if sources could be found. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Frank Lampard's disallowed goal is one of the most controversial topic however I do not see it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.92.92 ( talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Please fix the grammar in the article. "This reportedly reducing the players, especially the younger ones, to tears and they applauded her". What the hell does that mean? I would have fixed myself but I don't know what the heck this is talking about. I am seeing more of this in the English section of Wikipedia. Nobody wants you to contribute if you cannot speak English, please contribute in your own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 ( talk) 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone.
As we approach yet another WC tournament, I believe that now is an appropriate time to revisit some key issues (at least IMHO).
I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 1998 and 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies articles (see here).
Those of you who followed the process will remember the 2002 article was the subject of two deletion debates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort.
Here's hoping for a fantastic competition!
Regards. Asoccer maniac ( talk) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 ( talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 ( talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The comment calls for a section about a "disallowed goal", presumably Skrtel's goal line clearance, and subsequent calls for goal line technology. I have not heard this moment called controversial by neutrals, so I'm going to delete this section. If someone has a neutral source for these claims, they can add it back into the article. (My opinion, FWIW: no available replay clearly shows the ball over the line, unlike Lampard's disallowed goal. Using NFL-style replay guidelines, there is no evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. If every replay and photo supports the referee, there's nothing controversial about the incident) -- 74.57.177.192 ( talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I watched the game and read reports afterwards - I don't remember anyone asserting that the ball had crossed the line at all. Ubertoaster ( talk) 10:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Also there are two penalties, from Fabio Coentrao to Fernando Torres and from Ricardo Carvalho to Fernando Llorente; and finally an incredible laissez faire to Pepe's harsh gamestyle. I conclude that the corresponding match section is biased and wrong as it suggests that Portugal was eliminated because of referee's influence, not being true; if such section about controversies is included it should include all controversies. Aiarakoa ( talk) 10:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Another biased section. Step by step:
Another section that suggests that Spain may have been favoured, that the result was conditioned by the referee's decisions. Suming the penalties not conceded during the 4 played matches (suffered by Silva, Villa, Torres, Llorente, etc), and the red cards not shown to Grichting (against Switzerland) and Ponce (against Chile), one thinks that such sections doesn't meet at all the expectable fairness. Aiarakoa ( talk) 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Suarez's handball during stoppage time of extra time should be mentioned. It is the only reason that Uruguay had a chance to (and did) advance. The referees decision certainly wasn't controversial, but the play was. 69.178.104.87 ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a section. Not a refereeing controversy but certainly an element of gamesmanship. Francium12 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that someone has made two separate paragraphs, one for "Errors" and one for "Disputed Decisions", the former for refereeing errors, the other for what may amount to people just complaining because they didn't get the result they wanted.
Certainly this separation is both POV and OR? For instance, the referee/linesman who made a call, would believe that their call was justified. And, as shown by the frequent removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy, "believing is seeing". I watched England-Germany and Italy-Slovakia, and if anything, the Italy ball was far more convincingly over the line than Lampard's shot. However, just because the Anglocentric media didn't report it that way, and the current anti-Italian bias is in full-force, not to mention the Slovakian defender is a a star of a Premiership club, we read about how it was cleared "off the line", while Lampard, hero of Chelsea and England, was "robbed".
The central point however is that having one ditor decide which are "Errors" and which merely "Disputed Decisions" is obviously POV. Any thoughts/suggestions? 41.132.229.210 ( talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is acceptable or not, but on another discussion page here the reason for the removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy is "We saw the ball not cross the line"(OR and POV) and anything besides a few key moments(including Lampard) is "the rest of the crap". Certainly that should not be criteria for inclusion or exclusion? 41.132.229.210 ( talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Many people have come to accept that the second goal of Netherlands was offside, which the referee didn't see. It was a turning point in the game and another referee mistake that should be noted in the article. - Sacchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.69.66 ( talk) 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Are the match controversies in any particular order? It does seem to by round, alphabetically, or in chronological order. I suggest we order by phase first (i.e. Group stage, Round of 16, Quarter-finals, etc.) and then alphabetically by first team listed (then by second team listed if there happens to be any controversies with the same lead team in the same stage). E.g. (where Team x is the name of a country):
Is there any sources about how Spain encroached in the Paraguay penalty shot? Kingjeff ( talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe Paraguay had a legitimate goal disallowed and ruled as offside even though Oscar Cardozo did not touch the ball before it went to the goalscorer, meaning the play was onside. This meant that if the goal was allowed to stand and the score remained thus then the match would have gone into extra-time and perhaps even penalties. There is therefore no judging who would have therefore won the game had the goal stood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well folks, the World cup is over and it's time to start whittling this down to be more like an encyclopedia article. Only incidents which generated lasting and severe repercussions need be dealt with here; every single "we-wuz-robbed" article from a sports website doesn't need to be reflected here. Any takers? -- John ( talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to immediately respond to the above comment by saying that near enough all incidents mentioned should be listed on the page. The article for the controversies of the 2006 World Cup is much larger than the one for the 2010 World Cup, even though there were more "controversial" decisions in 2010. I do believe that all the incidents warrant a section but need to be written in an impartial manner, which may be the problem. A suggestion would be to categorize the incidents in exactly the same way the page for the 2006 World Cup does, actual controversies and then disputed decisions. The incidents on this discussion page should perhaps be mentioned on a "disputed decisions" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 ( talk) 21:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Spain's encroachment of Paraguay's penalty shot is worth mentioning if sources could be found. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Frank Lampard's disallowed goal is one of the most controversial topic however I do not see it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.92.92 ( talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Please fix the grammar in the article. "This reportedly reducing the players, especially the younger ones, to tears and they applauded her". What the hell does that mean? I would have fixed myself but I don't know what the heck this is talking about. I am seeing more of this in the English section of Wikipedia. Nobody wants you to contribute if you cannot speak English, please contribute in your own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 ( talk) 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone.
As we approach yet another WC tournament, I believe that now is an appropriate time to revisit some key issues (at least IMHO).
I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 1998 and 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies articles (see here).
Those of you who followed the process will remember the 2002 article was the subject of two deletion debates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort.
Here's hoping for a fantastic competition!
Regards. Asoccer maniac ( talk) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 ( talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 ( talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)