 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep (early). |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
First yellow card for Australia Vs Japan was back to front (grella in japan's, miyamoto in aus').
I switched them round.
- Nick C.
Wrong!
- Cheese
I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead, I propose to remove some of the information at the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. I think, that the results at that page should be as on 2004 European Football Championship. When the WC is over, a statistic page also could be made, also as Euro 04. ka la ha 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Josip Simunic was yellow carded three times!! 61' 90' and 93'+. FIFA removed the 90' yellow-card from the official report, while the stadium report showed all three. By the official rules, Croatia can ask for the game to be annulled without recourse, given the TV evidence. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) BBC reported a yellow card to Sric that was not in the official report either. Are we sure that the missing yellow was, in fact, issued? 2) Would Croatia really gain anything from such an annulment? Australia would still qualify? 3) Would FIFA even grant it, since Australia did not benefit by Croatia not going a man down? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- For a short amount of time, there actually was a "3" in Simunic's YC-column on the match report (don't have a screenshot, so you'll have to trust me on that one) - WC Matchcast also showed the red card after the second yellow. The TV-coverage also ran the double yellow graphic after the second. So I think it's pretty safe to say there were three yellows. In this case, it would normally be the 4th referee's job to point out the error, but he didn't. / AB-me ( chit-chat) 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's damn hilarious! :p Kiwi8 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- More like damn rediculous.
Xtra 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Its worse than that - the final yellow/red was given after the game had finished (hence the disallowed 3rd goal to Australia). Why is FIFA covering this up? I've seen it several times now via the game live, a replay and three news channels in Aus. Why don't they just be honest and there would be no controversy - just a mistake by the ref for failing to make sure he was marched after the second card. Greynurse 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please be aware everyone, that according to the Laws of the Game, yellow and red cards are allowed to be awarded after the final whistle, so Poll was quite justified. Aphrodite007
- Does anyone know if this has happened before? Is there any presedent? -- 68.45.76.174 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Greynurse, I believe the third Aussie goal was disallowed because Poll blew the final whistle for the end of the match before the goal and that it is unrelated to the third yellow...although that was another questionable decision to stop the match while a team had a legitimate scoring chance-- 128.205.153.176 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whether there was a legitimate scoring chance is irrelevant. Once the referee is satisfied the requisite amount of time has been played the ref should blow for full time. If that comes in the middle of a scoring opportunity for a team then that's tough luck. -- Chrism 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Although you are technically right Chrism, it is general referee procedure to wait for the obvious goal-scoring play to be finished (ie. a goal kick or a free kick to the defending team), let them clear the ball up-field, and then blow full-time. As a referee myself (Sydney 1st Division), I was instructed by the head of my panel to do this, which follows the precident set by referees in most leagues around the world.
Sorry for sounding critical, but the Australian kit against the Croatian side was the yellow one, not the blue one as shown in the picture. Would it be worth chaning the picture? -- mdmanser 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep (early). |
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
First yellow card for Australia Vs Japan was back to front (grella in japan's, miyamoto in aus').
I switched them round.
- Nick C.
Wrong!
- Cheese
I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead, I propose to remove some of the information at the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. I think, that the results at that page should be as on 2004 European Football Championship. When the WC is over, a statistic page also could be made, also as Euro 04. ka la ha 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Josip Simunic was yellow carded three times!! 61' 90' and 93'+. FIFA removed the 90' yellow-card from the official report, while the stadium report showed all three. By the official rules, Croatia can ask for the game to be annulled without recourse, given the TV evidence. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) BBC reported a yellow card to Sric that was not in the official report either. Are we sure that the missing yellow was, in fact, issued? 2) Would Croatia really gain anything from such an annulment? Australia would still qualify? 3) Would FIFA even grant it, since Australia did not benefit by Croatia not going a man down? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- For a short amount of time, there actually was a "3" in Simunic's YC-column on the match report (don't have a screenshot, so you'll have to trust me on that one) - WC Matchcast also showed the red card after the second yellow. The TV-coverage also ran the double yellow graphic after the second. So I think it's pretty safe to say there were three yellows. In this case, it would normally be the 4th referee's job to point out the error, but he didn't. / AB-me ( chit-chat) 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's damn hilarious! :p Kiwi8 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- More like damn rediculous.
Xtra 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Its worse than that - the final yellow/red was given after the game had finished (hence the disallowed 3rd goal to Australia). Why is FIFA covering this up? I've seen it several times now via the game live, a replay and three news channels in Aus. Why don't they just be honest and there would be no controversy - just a mistake by the ref for failing to make sure he was marched after the second card. Greynurse 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please be aware everyone, that according to the Laws of the Game, yellow and red cards are allowed to be awarded after the final whistle, so Poll was quite justified. Aphrodite007
- Does anyone know if this has happened before? Is there any presedent? -- 68.45.76.174 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Greynurse, I believe the third Aussie goal was disallowed because Poll blew the final whistle for the end of the match before the goal and that it is unrelated to the third yellow...although that was another questionable decision to stop the match while a team had a legitimate scoring chance-- 128.205.153.176 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whether there was a legitimate scoring chance is irrelevant. Once the referee is satisfied the requisite amount of time has been played the ref should blow for full time. If that comes in the middle of a scoring opportunity for a team then that's tough luck. -- Chrism 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Although you are technically right Chrism, it is general referee procedure to wait for the obvious goal-scoring play to be finished (ie. a goal kick or a free kick to the defending team), let them clear the ball up-field, and then blow full-time. As a referee myself (Sydney 1st Division), I was instructed by the head of my panel to do this, which follows the precident set by referees in most leagues around the world.
Sorry for sounding critical, but the Australian kit against the Croatian side was the yellow one, not the blue one as shown in the picture. Would it be worth chaning the picture? -- mdmanser 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)