Jump to content

Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Group/Knockout stages chart

We should stop adding an either/or to the knockout stages chart, before the matches take place. It was useful while we had four teams competing, but with only two teams competing, it's obviously going to be either one or the other!

What's with flags being taken out of the group section in the main chart? That isn't standard style at all. All four flags should stay in the group box, because they're all in the group. The first and second place winners will be obvious, because they go into the second group. It will be absurd if, at the end of the group stages, each group shows only two flags. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the idea is to show only the "possible" contenders. It was discussed above, altough I didn't see the conclusion. Rich Farmbrough 17:55 16 June 2006 (GMT).
That's silly. The discussion above also implies that we're going to move the flag over into the group of 16 once we know its place. So will we just keep moving the flags and deleting those who lost? When this torunament is over, we're going to have an empty table, with just a single flag in the winning position???
At the end of the tournament, we should be able to work out nearly everything just by looking at the chart. We shouldn't have to scroll around trying to remember who was in Group C, or what games were played in the group of 16. Keep all four flags in the group section, and keep the teams that played in the knockout rounds. We don't have to start deleting things just because we're so proud to have worked out that so-and-so can't possibly get into the second round. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I missed the much longer section of talk, so I guess I'll restrict my opinions to being up there. Personally, I think the fianl chart should look like this one. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. All flags should be in the initial boxes with the qualified ones in the next round and so on. sikander 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree as well, but there seems to be some fierce opposition... Rodri316 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not give it much importance. When a qualification spot is definate, we can easily return all the flags to the first bracket as per previous WC editions. At the moment it gives the best information. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
But the best information is not been given. Group D is wrong. And this kind of information are in the groups parts. There is no need for confusing information. Lemke
If you eliminate the flags, the first column and the second column will be eventually identical. So what's the point ? Please restore them. Hektor 05:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The point, which should be clear from all the previous discussion if people took the time to try and understand what everyone is saying, is that this elimination of flags is a temporarything to show the possibilities narrowing as the group games are played. The idea is to restore the flags of the entire groups (listed twice, which might confuse some people) when the groups games are over. This gets rid of the main objection of the left column will be the same as the next one along - so can we not have people saying that again and again, please? Carcharoth 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • New Proposal

From the "Group Stage" the Winner (1st) and Runner Up (2nd) positions in each group progress to the "Round of 16". Initially all four teams in each group have an equal chance at both positions, but as the play-offs proceed, cumulative results will knock some teams out of contention, and guarantee other teams a place in the next round. When there are three or fewer teams left with a chance at a given place, they are shown in the "Round of 16" column.

Rollover the "Round of 16" candidate flags to see the qualification conditions. 

{{Round16-waiting
<!--Date-Place|Team 1|Score 1|Team 2|Score 2 -->
<!--Round of 16  -->
|[[24 June]] - [[Munich]]| [[Image:Flag of Ecuador.svg|20px|Ecuador: win or draw vs Germany]] or [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|20px|Germany: win vs Ecuador]] || [[Image:Flag of England.svg|20px|England: loss vs Sweden]] or [[Image:Flag of Sweden.svg|20px|Sweden: draw vs England or loss vs England + Trinidad and Tobago draw or loss vs Paraguay]] or [[Image:Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg|20px|Trinidad and Tobago: win vs Paraguay + England win vs Sweden]] |
|[[24 June]] - [[Leipzig]]| [[Image:Flag of Argentina.svg|20px|Argentina: win or draw vs the Netherlands]] or [[Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|20px|Netherlands: win vs Argentina]] |||
|[[26 June]] - [[Kaiserslautern]]||||
|[[26 June]] - [[Cologne]]||||
|[[25 June]] - [[Stuttgart]]| [[Image:Flag of England.svg|20px|England: win or draw vs Sweden]] or [[Image:Flag of Sweden.svg|20px|Sweden: win vs England]] || [[Image:Flag of Ecuador.svg|20px|Ecuador: loss vs Germany]] or [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|20px|Germany: draw or loss vs Ecuador]] |
|[[25 June]] - [[Nuremberg]]| [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|20px|Mexico: misc. results]] or [[Image:Flag of Iran.svg|20px|Iran: win vs Portugal + win vs Angola + Portugal win (with inferior goal difference) or draw vs Mexico]] or [[Image:Flag of Portugal.svg|20px|Portugal: misc. results]] || [[Image:Flag of Argentina.svg|20px|Argentina: loss vs the Netherlands]] or [[Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|20px|Netherlands: draw or loss vs Argentina]] |
|[[27 June]] - [[Dortmund]]||||
|[[27 June]] - [[Hannover]]||||
<!--quarter finals  -->
|[[30 June]] - [[Berlin]]||||
|[[30 June]] - [[Hamburg]]||||
|[[1 July]] - [[Gelsenkirchen]]||||
|[[1 July]] - [[Frankfurt]]||||
<!--semi finals  -->
|[[4 July]] - [[Dortmund]]||||
|[[5 July]] - [[Munich]]||||
<!--final  -->
|[[9 July]] - [[Berlin]]||||
<!--third place  -->
|[[8 July]] - [[Stuttgart]]||||
<!-- # delete till the end with the use of Round16 template  -->
|A|[[Image:Flag of Costa Rica.svg|20px|Costa Rica]] [[Image:Flag of Ecuador.svg|20px|Ecuador]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|20px|Germany]] [[Image:Flag of Poland.svg|20px|Poland]]
|1st
|B|[[Image:Flag of England.svg|20px|England]] [[Image:Flag of Paraguay.svg|20px|Paraguay]] [[Image:Flag of Sweden.svg|20px|Sweden]] [[Image:Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg|20px|Trinidad and Tobago]]
|2nd
|C|[[Image:Flag of Argentina.svg|20px|Argentina]] [[File:Flag of Côte d'Ivoire.svg|20px|Côte d'Ivoire]] [[Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|20px|Netherlands]] [[Image:Flag of Serbia and Montenegro; Flag of Yugoslavia (1992–2003).svg|20px|Serbia and Montenegro]] 
|1st
|D|[[Image:Flag of Angola.svg|20px|Angola]] [[Image:Flag of Iran.svg|20px|Iran]] [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|20px|Mexico]] [[Image:Flag of Portugal.svg|20px|Portugal]]
|2nd
|E|[[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|20px|Czech Republic]] [[Image:Flag of Ghana.svg|20px|Ghana]] [[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|20px|Italy]] [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|United States]]
|1st
|F|[[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|20px|Australia]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|20px|Brazil]] [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px|Croatia]] [[Image:Flag of Japan.svg|border|20px|Japan]]
|2nd
|G|[[Image:Flag of France.svg|20px|France]] [[Image:Flag of South Korea (bordered).svg|20px|South Korea]] [[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|16px|Switzerland]] [[Image:Flag of Togo.svg|20px|Togo]]
|1st
|H|[[Image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|20px|Saudi Arabia]] [[Image:Flag of Spain.svg|20px|Spain]] [[Image:Flag of Tunisia.svg|20px|Tunisia]] [[Image:Flag of Ukraine.svg|20px|Ukraine]] 
|2nd
|B|[[Image:Flag of England.svg|20px|England]] [[Image:Flag of Paraguay.svg|20px|Paraguay]] [[Image:Flag of Sweden.svg|20px|Sweden]] [[Image:Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg|20px|Trinidad and Tobago]]
|1st
|A|[[Image:Flag of Costa Rica.svg|20px|Costa Rica]] [[Image:Flag of Ecuador.svg|20px|Ecuador]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|20px|Germany]] [[Image:Flag of Poland.svg|20px|Poland]] 
|2nd
|D|[[Image:Flag of Angola.svg|20px|Angola]] [[Image:Flag of Iran.svg|20px|Iran]] [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|20px|Mexico]] [[Image:Flag of Portugal.svg|20px|Portugal]]
|1st
|C|[[Image:Flag of Argentina.svg|20px|Argentina]] [[File:Flag of Côte d'Ivoire.svg|20px|Côte d'Ivoire]] [[Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|20px|Netherlands]] [[Image:Flag of Serbia and Montenegro; Flag of Yugoslavia (1992–2003).svg|20px|Serbia and Montenegro]]
|2nd
|F|[[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|20px|Australia]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|20px|Brazil]] [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px|Croatia]] [[Image:Flag of Japan.svg|border|20px|Japan]]
|1st
|E|[[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|20px|Czech Republic]] [[Image:Flag of Ghana.svg|20px|Ghana]] [[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|20px|Italy]] [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|United States]]
|2nd
|H|[[Image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|20px|Saudi Arabia]] [[Image:Flag of Spain.svg|20px|Spain]] [[Image:Flag of Tunisia.svg|20px|Tunisia]] [[Image:Flag of Ukraine.svg|20px|Ukraine]]
|1st
|G|[[Image:Flag of France.svg|20px|France]] [[Image:Flag of South Korea (bordered).svg|20px|South Korea]] [[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|16px|Switzerland]] [[Image:Flag of Togo.svg|20px|Togo]]
|2nd
}}

Original proposal: Xpi6 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) // Layout edited: Xpi6 06:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this scheme: all flags are preserved in the groups column, while the remaining Round of 16 candidates slot into that column (unless all four teams are still live). Note that the rollover text for each remaining candidate flag indicates the conditions that give this result. (Feel free to move the example above to a separate page if that would be more appropriate, or delete once it has served its purpose). Xpi6 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) // Edited for clarity by Xpi6 06:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. I think something similar was in fact used earlier, but got lost in the edit war. It didn't use the mouse-over thing you use, which I like (though is this fully accessible to, say, those using screen readers?). The longer mouse-over bits don't fit, and for detailed permutations analysis, people should really be directed to the Main article about the group. The only other niggle I have is that the column called "Group Stage" lists each team twice. An unwary reader could think that there were 72 teams competing for qualification from the group stage. Carcharoth 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea too! It satisfies the side who want to show the possibilities and the side who want to show the participants of the group. Let's compromise, people! Cheers Kiwi8 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's better. Pallfy's idea was similar but he duplicated all of the flags in the second column rather than limit the second column to just those that had got a secured spot. Jooler 09:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Pallfry's idea is great. At the moment the main page version of it just looks like two teams are competing for the "Round of 16" stage, rather than the full four teams. Switch it to this. Mitch119 12:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a reader is going to think that there were 72 teams unless they are extremely dumb. You have to credit the reader with a modicum of intelligence. Jooler 09:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that the long alt tags will screw up the formatting in something like lynx (if a text-only browser is what you mean by a "screen reader"), but then again I some have doubts about how well the original table would come out anyway. I considered this point, but decided that the extra info would probably be worth any such incidental pain. Xpi6 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how to fix the minimum width of the boxes (or the whole table) so that when you squish the web page horizontally you don't get everything stacking up on top itself? Jooler 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, not offhand, but I think you'd need to fiddle with the template. From previous experience with similar tables, this probably isn't too difficult... Xpi6 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that the boxes in the first column are labelled "1st A" and "1st B" etc. This is incorrect as it is the next column that should be labelled this way. The first column, under the two possible layouts, should be showing either: (a) All the teams in Group X competing for place 1/2; or (b) the teams in contention for place 1/2. The current labelling of the boxes could be interpreted either way. Carcharoth 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what "1st A", "1st B"? I don't quite follow. Surely the lefthand box in the top row of the "Group Stage" column is labelled "A" to indicate "Group A", then the flags of the members of Group A are in the middle box, while the "1st" in the righthand box indicates that the winner (first place) of Group A will advance along the line to the corresponding "Round of 16" box. Or did you mean something else? Xpi6 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to explain what I meant below. Hopefully it is clear. At the moment, I think people read across the box and think that the column is showing the remaining contenders for first place in Group A, rather than the initial contenders for 1st place in Group A. I think moving the "1st" bit to appear at left within the "Round of 16" column (after the line leading from the Group to the Last 16 place), would emphasise that it is the Last 16 place that is "1st A" or whatever. Carcharoth 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)Argh! I hate table formatting!! Can anyone who knows how to try and implement the following:
  • Change the "Group Stage" column from three subcolumns to two, removing the subcolumn containing the "1st/2nd" bits.
  • Change the "Round of 16" column from two subcolumns to three, adding a new initial subcolumn before the team subcolumn, similar to the A/B/C/D/E etc initial subcolumn in the "Group Stage" column. This new initial subcolumn in the "Round of 16" column should give the 1st/2nd information removed from the "Group Stage" column, but also have a group label. ie. reading from top to bottom, the column would label the places as: A1, B2, C1, D2, etc.
I think this would make things a lot clearer. I just wish I knew how to navigate the byzantine layout of wiki-markup for tables! Carcharoth 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added an explanation in front of the table, please take a look. Hopefully that clears any confusion up. I agree that the table could be edited instead, but given that you'd have to fiddle with the template, I think it might be more trouble than it was worth. I certainly don't really want to try, especially since the above table required sufficient fiddling that I'm ready to declare complete happiness with the end result. :) Reversing the question, which is better, the current situation, or the above table? Since you don't seem to strongly object, I think I'll go ahead and switch the main page over soon. Feel free to keep making suggestions or direct improvements though. Xpi6 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty comfortable changing the Template to whatever you guys want, I just want to see some concensus on the issue beforehand. --Palffy 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Heads up for the ideator of the above format. Wiki discussion wins again! └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure! "I love it when a good idea comes together!" ;> Xpi6 06:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are the flags of Ghana, Czech Republic, and Italy shown in the next stage without the US flag? All teams in group E are still able to move on to the next level. Could someone please change this. The USA is not out.Maxflight 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The USA is not out, but cannot be first in its group. — TheKMantalk 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But it can be runner up and can still advance, therefore, since no teams from group E have been eliminated as of yet, all teams in Group E should be taken out of the round of sixteen or the US should be put in.Maxflight 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

US is out of the FIRST PLACE box. But not of the SENCOND PLACE box. Relaz, man. - Lemke

People come on

I worked realy hard into including the official match ball section into this article and somebody just erases it. It always happens to me when I add something to an article. Is the official ball section not relevant or what??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob Diablo (talk • contribs).

It got moved into the world cup miscelleaneous section with all the other stuff, its on its own page now. Batman2005 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Two things

  • Who is updating the group pages? Because someone colored the standings boxes for non-secure second round teams.(I fixed it)
  • Can we delete some unneeded discussion articles, the page is kinda long.

Bornagain4 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Created Archive 3. sikander 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout Stage

A think there is a mistake at the Knckout Stage session. Alredy-eliminated flags shouldn't be deleted from the group stage column, but alredy-classified flags should be add to Round of 16 column.

But we dont know yet who the winner and runner-up will be per group. sikander 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge debate in some of the sections above. I haven't bothered to read them but you can if you want. And please sign your articles. Bornagain4 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In the H winner part of knockout, it shows Spain as the only possibilty. Ukraine could, although highly unlikely, tie with Spain for points and get more net goals then Spain.--Metallurgist 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Group D situation

Hi folks! I think I have to make it clear that until the Portugal vs Iran game is played, all teams still have a chance at both first place and 2nd place. Please stop removing the flags until it is done. Kiwi8 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Angola's scoreless draw to Mexico gives them 1 point, and with one game to play, they may score a maximum of 4 points. A win to either Mexico or Portugal when they play each other will place them above Angola. Also, a draw in that game will put Portugal on 5 points, again denying Angola 1st position. MrTree 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong and right. A draw would give Mexico 5 points. Angola cannot get first place, but second is wide open. Bornagain4 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh but i think the discussion is reffering to where the teams can enter in the ro16 so then if angola cannot attain 2nd place, it is right to remove them from the position on the table. Philc TECI 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
But they can, so it's not. Kevin McE 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have figured out that Angola has been eliminated from first place because of the points and the nature of the match fixtures. Kiwi8 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about tie-breaking

Hi, I couldn't find this anywhere in the article, but what happens if the top two teams are tied (both points and goals) and draw in their final game against each other? What happens then?QuizQuick 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look here 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Tiebreaking_criteria, this should answer your question. -- Deville (Talk) 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From Regulations, 2006 FIFA World Cup, Germany [1], page 32:

4 The system of play shall be the league system, each team playing one match against each of the other teams in the same group, with three points for a win, one point for a draw and none for a defeat.

5 Ranking in each group shall be determined as follows:

(a) greater number of points obtained in all the group matches;

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above criterion, their ranking shall be determined as follows:

(b) greater number of points obtained in the group matches

between the teams concerned;

(c) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the

teams concerned;

(d) greater number of goals scored in the group matches between

the teams concerned;

(e) goal difference in all the group matches;
(f) greater number of goals scored in all the group matches;
(g) drawing lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World

CupTM.

6 The two teams coming fi rst and second in each group qualify for the second round.

Avia 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is WRONG. The people to blame are FIFA and UEFA, who are still circulating older versions of the rules. Please see here for details. Carcharoth 10:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Man of the match

Someone who knows what they are doing should add the man of the match for each match played. There are probably other and maybe better places to get it from. But I found this, and that's what gave me the idea to post this. And if the info can't be found else where then this will do:

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/e/wp/mom.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skaterdude182 (talk • contribs).

This info was put on the page but the general agreement was that it was basically nothing more than and ad for Budweiser. Jooler 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I can just imagine Budweiser crying over their spilt beer! :-) Carcharoth 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The Man of the Match is selected by the FIFA Technical Study Group, so it might have a place in the individual match reports. Intangible 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Common mistakes

Possibly a listing of some of the common mistakes might help them be avoided in the future, and something like this could be stuck at the top of the talk page as a lot of the discussion has now been archived:

  • Times of goals scored - at least two ways of writing the times of goals scored in injury time, complicated by the possibility of Extra Time in the knock-out stage. Can someone add here what times we use, plus a link to the relevant discussion?
  • Forgetting that the tie-break criteria can be used for three-way and four-way ties as well as two-way ties (this explains some of the seemingly redundant criteria).
  • Not calculating possibilities carefully enough and marking teams as eliminated/qualified too early. A common mistake is to assume that 6 points after two games is enough and that 0 points after two games is not enough. In reality, the qualification/elimination issue depends on the actual table and fixtures for that group, and such a general rule does not work.
  • Not realising the difference between being eliminated from 1st place (but still being in contention for second place) and being eliminated from qualification for the last 16 (unable to reach second place).
  • Not realising that Germany is currently on CEST which is UTC+2, and changing the times to UTC+1 or something else entirely.
  • A distressing number of people just enter the wrong scores, times and table statistics - I am beginning to suspect vandalism - especially the recent change to the tie-break criteria and the immediately following edit that claimed to revert the vandalism but in fact covered it up!
  • People reading the incorrect tiebreak rules still being made available by FIFA and UEFA. These rules were changed sometime in later 2005 (see webpage here) but copies of the older version of the rules are still floating around the internet.

Please add more common mistakes to the list, so hopefully people can avoid them. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Two new comments added above. Carcharoth 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
One more comment added above. Carcharoth 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If people didn't keep knocking out the flags you would have these problems. You have to credit the reader with some intelligence, let them work it out. Jooler 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does knocking out the flags create these problems? It is always better to explain things rather than let the reader work things out. For example, I've clarified the tie-breaking criteria section here. This will hopefully avoid the confusion seen here (corrected here), and the confusion seen here. I will now ressurect that discussion and illustrate some (unlikely) scenarios. Carcharoth 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I was about to withdraw the comment, given the other option posited above, but I don't think absolutely everything should be explained to the reader, because it then becomes both patronising and worse boring and tedious. Jooler 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Carcharoth: a worthy idea. However I should note that "A common mistake is to assume that...0 points after two games is not enough" is itself wrong. 0 points after two games means you're out, no matter what your result in the third game. -- Hux 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hux, you're actually wrong here. A team with 0 points after 2 matches can indeed qualify in second spot in their group. Team A beats team B and team C beats team D in the first round of matches, leaving A and C on 3 points each, with B and D on 0 points. Team A beats team C and team D beats team B in the second lot of matches, leaving A on 6 points, C on 3 points, D on 3 points and B on 0 points. In the final round of matches, Team A beats team D and team B beats team C, so team A tops the group with 9 points, the other three teams all end up on 3 points, team B qualifies on goal difference, despite the fact that they had 0 points after 2 games. 59.167.73.85 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I stand well and truly corrected! :) -- Hux 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreaking scenarios

Since we will soon be getting to the stage where fiendishly complicated tie-breaking scenarios are possible, I thought a brief discussion might be in order. A previous discussion is at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_3#Tiebreaking, and also at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Common_mistakes.

If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked as follows:

1) Goal difference in all group matches.
2) Greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
3) Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned.
4) Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned.
5) Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned.
6) Drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup.

Please note that these criteria, especially numbers 3-5, apply to 3-way and 4-way ties as well as 2-way ties. For 2-way ties, criteria 3 means that if two teams are level on the first two criteria, the winner of the match between the teams goes through. For 2-way tie, if the two teams are level on the first two criteria and the match was a draw, then criteria 4 and 5 are redundant and lots are drawn (criteria 6). Criteria 4 and 5 are thus used only for 3-way and 4-way ties.

Actually, this will take some time to write. Will update later. Carcharoth 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

the paragraph "Please note that these criteria..." surely belongs on this talk page, but not in the article: it is an aid to understanding the page, but not encyclopedic info. I have deleted all but the last sentence, and moved it to the top of the information. Kevin McE 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit of a grey area. I tried to write that for readers of the article, rather than editors. IMO, it belongs on both the article page and the talk page. There is nothing wrong, IMO, with an encyclopedia article explaining something, rather than being a dry listing of rules. This counts as expanding and rewriting the criteria for clarity. In case others feel that this is being too original, I would like to point out that it does not count as opinion (it is not opinion - it is an explication of the consequences of the criteria), and it is not original research - it only adds clarity, it does not add new information. Carcharoth 11:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Grey area acknowledged: maybe "surely" in my last piece gave the wrong impression. I don't think your bit was POV or original research, just a bit too wordy: are you OK with what I have done with it now? Kevin McE 11:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine. Thanks! Carcharoth 12:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The tiebreak scenarios are now summarised for Groups B and D. Groups A and C are simple cases where the only possible tiebreak is on goal difference after a draw between the group leaders. For Gropus B and D see here and here. Thanks to DaveOinSF for clearing up some confusion. Carcharoth 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ProfGlitch Is there a reason why the tiebreaking criteria was changed to its now obviously incorrect status? Vandalism?

Some people mis-read the FIFA document and used tie-break criteria from the qualification stages of the tournament that took place for a few years previous to the finals stage (which is happening now in Germany). Carcharoth 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is the correct FIFA document? If/when we are sure what the rules are, we should put a link to it in the article at 2006 FIFA World Cup#Point system. FIFA are apparently publishing numerous conflicting versions [2] and the one I've found puts the result of matches between teams as the first tie breaker. I went to the official World cup site at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/, then clicked 'Media' on the left, then clicked on 'Regulations 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM' (center of the page, you may have to scroll down a bit), then go to p34 of that PDF [3]. It lists points in group, then points between tied teams, with group-wide goal difference being well down the list. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition to my comment immediately above, apparently p40 of this PDF [4] is the "correct" one. I don't know what to believe though! Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of talk threads discussing these rules:

Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realise that FIFA had made changes and failed to make sure they were publishing the new rules and not the old ones. That is some serious confusion and failure to get the old versions correct or make clear they are old versions. From this link that you provided, it seems that we are, thankfully, using the correct rules. Does anyone think the fact that the FIFA website provides conflicting versions of these criteria during the tournament is noteworthy enough to go in the article somewhere? Quick, someone alert a Wikinews journalist! :-) (Or failing that, someone write to a big news media organisation). Carcharoth 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout stage flags

Should we....wait, i'm just kidding... Batman2005 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

=))) --Palffy 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone has left Brazil or Australia as the only option in the round of 16 flag table. I don't think it's that much of a certainty. Abaddonxi 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They are the only two teams who can claim first place, which is what the table shows (at least it does at the moment, I didn't check if anyone had edited it in the intervening period......) ChrisTheDude 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

North Korean broadcasting rights

In reverting some edits that messed up the code, I removed this from the article. I have since placed it in List of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

GHA vs. CZE: The penalty kick, yellow and red cards?

I seem to have missed something. First, I didn't think the penalty kick was deserved. Second, I didn't understand the whistle being called and a YEllow and red card being shown. I'd appreciate if something would clue me in. (Stupid American) pattersonc 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The red card was because the Czech player was the last defender and took away an obvious goal scoring opportunity. when the foul occured. Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct is where the rule is located. Kingjeff 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also look at Sending-off offences. Kingjeff 17:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the referee blew that part. He should have shown the red card imediately after he called for the penalty. Kingjeff 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The yellow card was for the Ghanian penalty taker, and was rather harsh IMO (especially as it means he misses the next game). Presumably it was for not waiting for the referee to tell him that he could take the penalty. I too found it strange that the referee took a long time to give the red card to the Czech player for the initial foul. Maybe it was for another offence, or maybe it just slipped his mind? ;-) Carcharoth 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Penalty

On June 17, Portugal played against Iran. Tehy scored two goals. It says Cristiano Ronaldo scored one goal, but he scored it in a penalty. Can somebody please indicate that.

Do we really need...

A link to the Game Calendar in EVERY group? Wouldn't it be easier and take up less room to just post it once and not worry about posting it 8 times. Batman2005 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, IMO.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Referees...

I know FIFA rates each of the referees for the games and then the best ones from the group stages goes on to referee in the knockout rounds, but I wonder how horribly the guy from the Italy-USA match is going to rate and whether or not he'll referee again, do they release information on this? I know that in the past you've heard about a referee being sent home, but do they make public the individual rating of the referees? Batman2005 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The referee of this particular game did an excellent job, IMO. None of the referees have done abysmally so far, although tehre have been some that definitely don't belong at the world cup. Krum Stanoev
Tell that to the thousands of experts tomorrow who will lambast this referee for ruining the match. I'll go with their opinions myself. Batman2005 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, let us see what the experts will say. I think they'll none of the cards were unwarranted and the american attacker that was off side was in the ball's path and therefore in an active offside. A nice change from referees who selectively show or don't show cards for the same offence. Krum Stanoev
So far the critics just state that the referee had no option in the italian red card and that he was too harsh on both US red cards. ABC stated "make-up red card" and some press (Washington Post [5], New York Times [6]) remember that besides the ban period this referee has already been under, he also awarded a controversial penalty against the US in a previous match. Italy are also lucky to have the second "good ref" after a clear penalty against them wasn't awarded in their game with Ghana when the score was still 1-0. To add to that, Italian domestic football has been under scrutiny recently due to alleged bribery and score fixing. Check Serie_A_scandal_of_2006 for more details. I'm not sure this is worthy of an entry about it. Referee controversy is a huge part of the game and so, IMO, wikipedia should cover some of these issues. I am afraid, however, that this would lead to a POV editing-war.--JoaoCastro 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Entries about referee controvesy sounds like an awful idea. Also, you shouln't quote American or Italian media, don't you think? And of course I know about the Italan scandal, I think everyone does. Some have suggested it would be bad if they pass the groups because that would divert attention from the scandal. Krum Stanoev
Yea, it was offside on that second USA shot that went in the goal, but that first USA red card was crap, especially given that three or four other fouls that were more severe were committed before and went unpunished. The elbowing was warranted and I wouldn't be shocked if it went to a two or three game ban. Pope's second yellow was questionable as he got the ball before he got the man as the replay clearly showed. Anyway...I'm guessing this is the last game this guy officiates in the World Cup, given his past history and this game. Batman2005 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think u ought to be familiar with the red card offence. Namely, two-footed lunges are outlawed, whether or not the tackle touches the ball before the man. This is a sending-off offence that's why he got the straight red card. Kiwi8 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Kiwi8 05:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with the offence, thanks. My only issue is that the first red card was no worse than several others that went unpunished before De Rossi's ejection. At that point I think the referee lost his head about he game. Disagree if you want, but its my feeling that we've seen the last of this referee in a world cup. This is the guy who was suspended for months by FIFA before, he's got a reputation as a poor referee, its a shock that he was included at all when others with more experience and better reputations were excluded. Batman2005 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The first red card leading to De Rossi's ejection? Again, it was for a deliberate elbow that occured right in front of the referee's view. In addition, it had ample visual consequence such as McBride's eye bleeding. It would be rare that the referee would miss it and not penalise it. Kiwi8 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No No No, i knew that one, my mistake, I meant the red card for Mastroeni was no worse than several other tackles before, i've watched the replay and it wasn't a two footed lunge, he started his slide...admittedly from behind, and got to the player a bit late....which was drawing yellow cards or only fouls before the De Rossi ejection. I certainly think the Rossi ejection warranted a red card, and possibly a longer ban...if you watch in slow motion you can see De Rossi look directly at McBride and then pull back and nail him. Just a cheap shot. Batman2005 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, Mastroeni. Actually, this is indeed a two-footed lunge because his hind leg followed through. This sort of tackle is dangerous and unpredictable, that's why it is heavily penalised by FIFA. Note also that his hind leg hit the Italian player too. For a one-footed tackle, it's something like one's hind leg being slightly bent. Kiwi8 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
His hind leg didn't follow through, the guy was already on the ground. I agree its a card, but it should not have been a straight red card...consistency is key and the referee wasn't, more serious challenges went unpunished. The referee wanted to even up the game and took the first opportunity he could find to do so, which is why nearly every newspaper you pick up today has something bad about that referee in it. He was bad, and i'm sure FIFA won't use him again for this or any other world cup. Batman2005 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think u should not expect referees to be able to spot every single serious offence. U can think of referees like traffic police who can only give tickets to those that they catch. And I beg to differ on his hind leg not following through. Instead, it did and it struck the Italian player. From the replays, it satisfy the criteria for a two-footed tackle and thus is eligible to be penalised with a red card. Kiwi8 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well whatever, I'm not going to change my stance (which is apparently the stance of experts around the world too after browsing some news sites today) that the Mastroeni card was merely a make up card and shouldn't have been a red and his hind leg didn't follow through. I don't expect perfection, I just expect that a referee in the worlds biggest tournament will let the teams decide the outcome of the game and will not be so blatantly bad for both sides. He's finished for the tournament and probably for future world cups as well in my opinion. Batman2005 17:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Browsing news sites is not enough. Even the so-called experts in the news sites may not completely know the rules. I have already learnt that from the various inaccurate interpretations of the offside rule by the so-called experts in previous incidents. What u need is to visit the referees' forum sites to ask the general consensus of the referees. And what I have found out from their opinions, is that this match referee handled the match as best as he could already, abeit a little on the strict side.Kiwi8 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
But do you think you'll see this referee at another game? That's the tell tale sign, my thinking is that he's done for the tournament, a tournament in which he never should have been refereeing. Batman2005 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, public criticism, if repeated often, will be a factor in organisations deciding to drop their staff even if they are not entirely at fault.Kiwi8 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's enough of the discussion board type stuff, my bad for starting it, but does anyone know if they release reports on the referees? As I imagine the ones that are bad could be useful in the articles about those officials. Batman2005 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, nooo. :-) Now this cat is out of the bag it is far, far too late to stuff it back in! That referee did an excellent job with his cards. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the initial yellow card for the USA defender - it was difficult to tell who fouled who. But the players should have realised early on that this was a strict referee and cut back on the reckless challenges. And the elbow and the potentially ankle-breaking challenges were red offences - no complaints from anyone there. And Kiwi8 is correct - getting the ball is no excuse with challenges from behind or two-footed challenges. If the tackle is dangerous, the referee is justified on booking the player. What I want to know is how the referee of the Portugal-Iran match missed the karate kick on Figo! Carcharoth 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Figo got popped. He's tough though, he took it like a champ. Batman2005 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we had that other referee that didn't see Figo ketting kicked and then gave him a card, and then even gave a card to another Portugese palyer for doing another (less pectacular) high kick - and that wasn't even the worst referee we've seen so far :) Krum Stanoev

Time zone is wrong!

The times matches are given in German local time, which is Central European Summer Time, but the link text reads "UTC+1", whereas Central European Summer Time is UTC+2.

The link reads All times local ([[Central European Summer Time|UTC+1]])

Should be All times local ([[Central European Summer Time|UTC+2]])

Posting this here instead of fixing it in case I've lost my mind. Amcguinn 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) ʙ

Time zones are now correct. File:UK Animated flag.gif London UK File:UK Animated flag.gif

can all the flags for the countries with long names, for instance czech repub - be moved to the right of the country name, for aesthetics? 68.216.149.254

Like:

Czech RepublicCzech Republic
Czech RepublicCzech Republic

File:UK Animated flag.gif London UK File:UK Animated flag.gif

Only if you lose the annoying animated flags from your signature... :-) Carcharoth 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the "annoying animated flags"?!? Long live Great Britain! Kingfisherswift 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Goals scored

In the introduction box with data about the tournament, there is a list of top goal scorers. And I know that one guy from Ghana scored two vs. Czech Republic, and it is not there. Can someone with more skill than I please fix it? Bornagain4 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghana's goals were scored by two different players - Gyan and Muntari. Mindmatrix 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria - please be careful

Please note that the changes made here to the tie-breaking criteria are INCORRECT. I have checked the PDF document that people keep linking to (see PDF document here - WARNING, takes long time to load). People are are looking at the criteria used in the QUALIFICATION ROUNDS (section IV, Article 7, paragraph 7), when they should be looking at the tie-break system set out in TECHNICAL RULES FOR FINALS COMPETITION (section XVII, Article 32, paragraph 5). Please, please, let's revert back to the correct criteria and please don't make any more incorrect changes, and let's get a link to somewhere that shows these criteria clearly, and not buried 40 pages deep in a 60-page PDF document. Carcharoth 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops sorry. The correct criteria were displayed earlier, but somebody edited the new incorrect criteria in. I scanned the .pdf to verify the new edit and I came across the exact criteria copied word for word so I just assumed that's what the entry was referring to. Dav2008 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The tiebreaking criteria are on pages 40-41 of the rulebook FYI. Maybe the pages could somehow be added to the reference. Dav2008 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure: own goals by your opponents do count in the "goals scored" tiebreak criterion, don't they? 84.239.128.9 07:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are counted. Kiwi8 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sundays

So...is religion the reason not to have games on Sundays? --152.163.100.6 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are games on every sunday except for July 2nd Dav2008 03:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Official theme song?

Does anybody know which, if any, is the official song/music/anthem of this World Cup?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankman (talk • contribs).

"The Time of Our Lives," by ill deviants and Boni Traxton.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the tie breaking criteria

The official rules PDF (pages 40-41) says that the qualifying criteria are:

a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;

b) goal difference in all group matches;

c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.

d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;

e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;

f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;

g) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™.

I don't understand how e) and f) can ever break a tie. Since there is only one game between each two teams, and d) already breaks the tie if they didn't tie that game, e) and f) would only be used in case that game was tied. But, if the game is tied, they scored the same number of goals on the game, so how can e) and f) break any tie?? Rbarreira 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They are used in three or four way ties.

e/f apply where three or four teams are on equal standings. --Robdurbar 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, and this has now been clarified in the main article, e/f (well, they were called that before bullet points were used instead) apply only to a three-way tie. In a four-way tie, d/e/f are identical to a/b/c. In a two-way tie, d simply means "who won the match between the teams", and, as you correctly note, e/f fail to break 2-way ties (or, more correctly, they break a 2-way tie in the same way that d does, and so are redundant). Hope that helps. Carcharoth 09:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the tiebreaking_criteria section was removed, if you find any links to said section please change them to go to 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Point_system instead. I was going to put the Tiebreaking criteria section back in (with a ==== header), but that would just amount to an edit war so it should probably be discussed here. Dav2008 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I've frequently moaned about these anchor (#) links breaking if section headings get changed. There really needs to be a way to get "What links here" to work for # links. Carcharoth 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft

To make it clear: "Fußball" is the only correct form in Germany, "Fussball" is slang and not official, beside that grammatical incorrect. I corrected it, but it was reverted, so keep it like is, but at least with the knowledge that it is wrong. --15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.135.174.188 (talk • contribs).

No its not wrong, we've already had this discussion in one of the archives. Read those before changing things and saying its all wrong. Batman2005 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Dont discuss with ur smattering. Point is that Swiss (FIFA) defined it as "Fussball" because they are stupid. Same inanity as for all Americans not knowing such a mystical letter. Anyway it is still wrong, in German it is "Fußball", end of story. Believe it or stay with ur ignorance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.135.174.188 (talk • contribs).
You're coming awfully close to personal attacks there bud. If FIFA is so stupid, why are you wasting your time editing this page? Quite ironic that you say "don't discuss with ur smattering" yet you started the smattering yourself. Additionally, with you using "words" like "ur," you don't seem to be in any sort of position to talk about grammar usage. Batman2005 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
U seem to be a great expert of the english language dude. I am not, thats why I don't correct any misspelling in english pages. Same thing why people who don't know German shouldn't do the same on German words. If you see, that if I called ur knowledge smattering is a personal attack, then take it as this, I call this a fact. --83.135.174.188 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, its "You" not "U." Again "your" not "ur." Goodness, if you think its so wrong then call up FIFA and give them your attitude. Otherwise, we'll continue to leave it as FIFA does, since it is their World Cup. Batman2005 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA is stupid? Doesn't matter, we have to respect their decision. - Lemke --200.138.210.229 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
To the anonymous troll: Eszett is generally not used in Switzerland. This is recognised by the Duden, according to Wikipedia[7]. FIFA is based in Switzerland. Note: I have no idea why I wasted my time writing this.
Now, about your command of the Enlgish langauge:
1. Look up the meaning of the word "slang" in a dictionary.
2. "u" and "ur" is "is slang and not official, beside that grammatical incorrect." Krum Stanoev 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockou Stage flags Group E

Someone put the flags back (Group E, first place). I don't know how to do that :/ - Lemke --200.138.210.229 18:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be about the same thing, but: If I understand correctly, if Italy beats the Czechs, and the US beat Ghana, then the US could advance to the next round. So why is the US flag not featured in the box for the next round? If I'm correct that it should be in there, could someone please put it in? Otherwise, could someone explain to me why the US advancing is impossible (as opposed to extremely unlikely)?

Thanks.

Rinne na dTrosc 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible for the US to get 1st place. That's why only 3 flags are present. There are 3 scenarios for the US to advance, and they all involve them in 2nd place. It is impossible for the US to grab 1st place-- so the US flag is not in the E1 box. However, every team can possibly get the 2nd place position, therefore no flags are transfered into the E2 box. ScottNak 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott!

I had it in my head that the flags were just for anybody who could possibly make it out of their round--in first OR second place. Good thing I asked before editing!

Rinne na dTrosc 12:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

rollover conditions

Hey, those qualification conditions that you get when you rollover the flags in the round of 16 are really cool. You guys are awesome. -lethe talk + 21:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that is good, take a look at the "tie-break scenarios" in the articles for each individual group! For example, the one for Group E is here. Carcharoth 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic & Ghana rollovers

The rollovers for these two teams are missing. Below is how I calculated they should be. Please check them and hopefully simplify them, then we'll add them in. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic: (win vs Italy + Ghana draw or lose vs USA) or (win vs Italy by +x goals + Ghana win vs USA by +y goals, where ((y-x<1) or (y-x=1 + (# Czech goals + 1 > # Ghana goals))))

Ghana: (win vs USA + Italy draw vs Czech Republic) or (win vs USA by +y goals + Italy lose vs Czech Republic by -y, where (x+y>1) or (x+y=1 + (# Ghana goals > # Czech goals + 1)))

Is Brazil being protected by FIFA?

From my IP you'll see I'm an Aussie, however 25 fouls for Australia to 9 for Brazil does seem a little fishy!! Perhaps FIFA are counting on ensuring a large tele audience by having the current world champs ensured of getting through? ~~

You could just as easily say, wouldn't FIFA be keen to be biased towards Australia, a sports-mad and sports-strong nation but one where association football is not as strong as other football codes? -- Chuq 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
see that Harry Kewell has now been charged for complaining to ref of bias. Must have been something goin on for that sort of lopsided number of fouls. is it correct? Greynurse 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
According to FIFA, it is correct. Still, could have any number of explanations: Brazil having the ball more, Brazil being "lazy" and not bothering to tackle, legally or illegally, Australia playing a game more like the one played in English leagues (which has, stereotypically anyway, more fouls) because most of their team play there, etc. So purely from the foul count there's no reason to suggest foul play. Sam Vimes 11:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sam Vimes' reasons tend to explain it. I saw the match, and I can definitely say that the Australians played much, much harder. (And for good reason, of course.) This itself will lead to more fouling on challenges. Add on to that that the Australians play a more English game as opposed to continental (most of the Brazilian squad plays on the Continent) and that the Australians had something to prove, and it's not surprising. Also, don't forget, the Brazilians are on average much more experienced and know better what the line is between a foul and not, and can skate it more finely than the Australians, e.g. they know exactly how hard they can tackle without getting called. Finally, if it makes you feel any better, more Brazilians (3) were booked than Australians (2). [8] I don't think there's much to worry about here. And, hey, if you're looking for conspiracies, how about two of my boys getting reds in the U.S. - Italia game? :P --Deville (Talk) 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh I'm an Aussie and I didn't find that much wrong with the ref despite the foul count. A few might have been dodgy but on the whole, we did foul significantly more than Brazil so it was more or less fair enough. Kewell was going crazy at the end, I'd be interested to know what he said... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Kewell is reported to have said repeatedly "you were shit". Reports on ABC (Australia) news 20 1900 K Jun 06 is he has just been cleared to play by FIFA. Same report analysed the Brazilian goals and both technically should have been "offside", but weren't. I guess that would get you worked up, but IMO Harry was stupid to do what he did - even if he had a legit complaint. Greynurse 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Scotland flag?

i think someone edited the brazilian flag and changed it to a scotish one ...hmmm

Three-way ties - problem?

It is possible that a three-way tie could occur in Group G. If Switzerland beat Togo today, and then France beat Togo while Switzerland and South Korea draw (all three results are quite likely), then three teams will finish tied for 1-3 place in the group.

The problem I foresee, from looking at the FIFA tiebreak criteria, is that they do not say what happens if a three-way tie is only partially resolved when applying criteria d, e, or f (the ones that look only at the points, goal difference and goals scored between the teams in the tie). Eg. One team has inferior points/GD/GS to the other two teams, but the other two teams are still tied on points/GD/GS. Do you then move on, say, from criteria d to e, and still use the values for the three-way tie, or do you recalculate the values for criteria d/e/f for a 2-way tie (effectively reverting to criteria d, as criteria e/f are irrelevant for a 2-way tie)?

The same would apply for a four-way tie, except for the fact that a four-way tie is no longer possible at this World Cup (in Group H, Spain drawing or winning one of its last two games, or losing them both - these conditions cover all possibilities - avoids a 4-way tie). Thankfully. Carcharoth 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the hypothetical three-way tie would only reach criteria d/e/f if Switzerland beat Togo 3-2 today, thus bringing the Swiss level with South Korea on points, GD and GS, all of which would be preserved in the hypothetical final draw between Switzerland and South Korea. For France to join that tie, they would have to beat Togo by 2+x:1+x, where x-x is the score in the South Korea-Switzerland draw! Carcharoth 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Scenarios given at User:Carcharoth/Group_G. Carcharoth 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I missed another 3-way tie scenario. Togo beat Switzerland and draw with France, and Switzerland beat South Korea. Will these scenarios be mapped out before the Togo-Switzerland game is finished?? :-) Carcharoth 12:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And as the game failed to finish 3-2 (either way), problems all resolved... Carcharoth 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FIAD

Does anyone know there is a Wikiproject for football? Everyone can participate in the Football Article Improvement Drive Kingjeff 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghana can still place first...

Can someone who knows what they are doing please add Ghana's flag in the chart to the 1st place round of 16 possible teams? If Ghana wins and Italy/Czech draws or Czech wins but ends up with tied or worse goal differential Ghana wins the group. (in the table I believe they are still mentioned as able to qualify for first, so perhaps this was just an oversight)

Ghana's flag is there. No problem as far as I can see. Carcharoth 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess someone beat you to fixing it...

Ivory Coast vs. Côte d'Ivoire

Somewhere it is called Ivory Coast, somewhere else Côte d'Ivoire. Which is the correct name?130.251.4.11 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Try finding out where these "somewheres" are, and you might have your answer. The answer here is Côte d'Ivoire. The other answer is that countries can have more than one name, and even those names can have different spellings, usage and translations. Carcharoth 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Côte d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast are the same country. So I really don't care what it's called. Kingjeff 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, there has been some acrimonious discussion which I seem to remember involving a block or two for edit warring about the name recently on the entry for the country. The article currently resides at Côte d'Ivoire which may indicate that consensus is that this is the correct version of the name to use. --GraemeL (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does this matter? Do you want to have a vote on it? Kingjeff 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want any vote. But I noticed that in the game reports it was spelled one way and two lines below, in the calendar, in the other way. Just a matter of coherence. Now it has been corrected by someone. Bye.130.251.4.11 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The country itself requests to be known by Côte d'Ivoire in English, so diplomatically it is followed around the world... Kiwi8 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a country competing in this World Cup called "Rich Coast", or is it Costa Rica? There are plenty, e.g. Puerto Rico, Sierra Leone, San Marino Sao Tome and Principe etc.. Jooler

Just another mattter. I was wondering what name u guys would use if Timor Leste (East Timor) were to be in the World Cup Finals? Kiwi8 09:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations (United_Nations_member_states), ISO (ISO_3166-1), IOC (List of IOC country codes), and FIFA (List_of_FIFA_country_codes) list it as Côte d'Ivoire. (BTW: Ditto for Timor-Leste, after I correct the FIFA listing with this reference [9]). ccwaters 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not generalize though (@ Joller). Many other countries are mentioned by their English names (ex. Italy as opposed to Italia).
If FIFA calls them Côte d'Ivoire then that's what the Wiki for the World Cup should call them, imo. -- Hux 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Goal Scorer Organization

Should the list of goal scorers be organized in some way? I was thinking alphabetically, but there may be a better scheme available as well. (to clarify, I mean: #Individual_scorers) Rballou 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just figured out that it is organized by country and then alphabetically. Rballou 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

also i dont think that the goal scorers should be put into a table because honestly its kinda hard to read and is quite confusing but maybe thats just me 7:00, 20 june 2006

OG

The own goals section needs a rethink. There's an Italian with an Italian flag and a Paraguayan with an England flag. Should the flag be of their country, or the country they scored for? Or a combo of both?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. It was just reverted to a Paraguay flag.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a quick edit for Torres' 3rd. Nice job, people! Beat me to it. Instinkt 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Match Report definitions

Does anybody know exactly how the "Actual Playing Time" stat in the official FIFA Match Report is calculated? In particular, I would like to know whether the sum of the two team's Actual Playing Time numbers equals the entire time that the ball was in play, or if there is a third number, not shown, that would be the time that the ball is in play but during which neither side has possession. For all of the matches that I've checked, the sum of the two Actual Playing Time numbers is between 50 - 55 minutes, leaving 35 - 40 minutes unaccounted for. That seems like a lot of time waiting for restarts. --Rkstafford 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Actual Playing Time refers only to the time during which the ball is moving around on the pitch between players, i.e. it doesn't include stoppages for injuries, time when the ball is out of play, time spent setting the ball up for a goal kick, free kick, corner kick, start of play following a goal, etc. etc. That's the only way to explain why it's so low compared to the total time. -- Hux 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"This article or section may contain external links added only to promote a website, product, or service – otherwise known as spam. If you are familiar with the content of the external links, please help by removing commercial links, in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. (you can help!)" Which link is it and what's the problem? Kingjeff 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of that is to prevent people adding spam links, which has been happening an awful lot, and to notify readers that they can get rid of it when it appears. Such usage is common on a large number of other pages, see Sudoku for example. Jooler 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do generally support the use of the template, though I'm not sure if it's necessary here. The article is on my watchlist, so spam doesn't get to hang around for long ;-) and at leat one other user has been keeping things clean. I'm not motivated to remove the template, but I wont go as far as to revert anybody else taking it out. --GraemeL (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had to remove spam myself about 4 times in the last week. Jooler 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was on a wikibreak for around a month until 3 or 4 days ago. I'm on top of things now though. --GraemeL (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is getting about 500 edits (maybe more) a day at the moment. Jooler 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe two or three of those were spammers. Seriously, random vandalism is much more of a problem at the moment and most of that gets fixed within two minutes. --GraemeL (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove the template. The point of a template is to notify others to fix the page and then remove the template. Just putting that up there isn't going to prevent anyone from posting spam links if they are so inclined. It's possible that some people may be adding links not knowing they are adding spam, in which case I think it would be more effective to add a comment in the code to tell people that they should post their links here first for approval, or to not post random links, etc.Dav2008 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"The point of a template is to notify others to fix the page and then remove the template." - If that is true then why is it permanently used on Sudoku etc? The point of the template is to inform readers that the may be a spam link amongst the links, and to remove the spam. Also there IS also a comment on the page to do exactly what you say. Jooler 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just had to remove another one now that was on the page for five hours (while I was asleep). Someone who ignored the comment in the code. Jooler 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the problem specifically with the SOS Villages link? Kingjeff 12:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no probelm at the moment (as I speak) - the point of the template is to make sure we don't get spam, by encouraging people to remove it if someone esle adds it. The template says "... section may contain external links added only to promote a website ..." - it doesn't says it does contain spam. Jooler 12:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It just makes it look like there is a problem with a link. Kingjeff 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem with that "spam" template is that it is horribly worded. It implies that external links are spam, rather than saying that some external links may be spam, and also failing to make clear that spam links are a subset of the wider phenomenon of spam. Rather than use a template like that, I would go and rewrite it or set up a new one. Carcharoth 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Sponsors

What the hell is this? Are we suddenly doing free advertinsing for these guys? BTW did you hear about the Dutch fans who had to sit and watch the game in their shreddies? Jooler

I've removed the offending "thing", basically someone added a huge block with all the sponsors logos like one of those boards they put behind the players when they get interviewed. Jooler 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was seriously considering doing the same. If somebody can dig up some background to sponsorship of the event, then some text with a list of links to the articles for the sponsors may be relevant. The image gallery could probably be best described as a "thing". --GraemeL (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Such a list already exists at 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. jaco♫plane 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it does. Including the 'thing' here was even worse then. --GraemeL (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
agreed, thanks for removing itDav2008 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Table wrong

Why are Japan and Croatia not included in the possible teams for coming second in their group. True, they cannot come first, but they can come second.

Thank you for making the change - that was quick.

Standardize Article

I not a biggest contributor to this article or can be say just a viewer. This include my opinion after viewing all the 18 FIFA World Cup article:

  • article not standardize or different Manuel of Style, this include 1994 and 1998 were not use

{{footballbox}}.

  • Even they use footballbox, however some article use ref; referee; attendance (bolded or not bolded)--mixed
  • Isi't the time is really important after the match over?
  • and of course big table, different of bgcolor in the table. isi't really important to present this? The World Cup is the prestige tournament, who don't know the basic rules. I support the teams qualified to the second round should present in color but not the other.

Thank you. Aleenf1 07:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Standardising would be good, but I don't think much will happen until the articles for the current World Cup settle down.
  • copyediting for the ref/referee, goal differential/goal difference and other things, does need doing. Again, probably something to be done after this World Cup, unless people want to start now.
  • Isi't the time is really important after the match over? - sorry, I don't understand this.
  • About the colours - that is a temporary thing, and I like it, and I think quite a few other people do as well.
Carcharoth 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Full Table

It seems that there is a full table ranking all the 32 teams by their games in the group phases. But is that table really fair, since the teams are only playing within their group and not against each other? I do not think this full table is appropriate. Please comment too. Thanks. Kiwi8 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this full table? It is not in this article, please link to it from this talk page. From your description, it does not sound suitable, though it could be interesting as a link. Carcharoth 10:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone already took it out.... ChrisTheDude 10:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You can see it here.
I'm not sure, but I believe that FIFA uses such a table to set the final positions of the 32 teams that didn't advance to the next round, so it is not completely idiotic, but still porbably not necesary. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I took it out. It's comparing apples with oranges. A team in group of death with a team in a group of life. It's not fair; it's a statistical deception. See also my argument on Talk:National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Bogus rankings Jooler 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it! Sure it is misleading, but it is still nice to see all the teams compared in some way. Maybe not on this page, but somewhere else? Carcharoth 10:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Here you go

JedG 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Common mistakes II

Copied from above to make more people aware of it - should this be put at the top of the talk page while the tournament is in progress? .

No, most people who do these mistakes actually do not glance at the Talk page at all! -- └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a listing of some of the common mistakes might help them be avoided in the future, and something like this could be stuck at the top of the talk page as a lot of the discussion has now been archived:

  • Times of goals scored - at least two ways of writing the times of goals scored in injury time, complicated by the possibility of Extra Time in the knock-out stage. Can someone add here what times we use, plus a link to the relevant discussion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_3#Stoppage_Goals -- └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgetting that the tie-break criteria can be used for three-way and four-way ties as well as two-way ties (this explains some of the seemingly redundant criteria).
  • Not calculating possibilities carefully enough and marking teams as eliminated/qualified too early. A common mistake is to assume that 6 points after two games is enough and that 0 points after two games is not enough. In reality, the qualification/elimination issue depends on the actual table and fixtures for that group, and such a general rule does not work.
  • Not realising the difference between being eliminated from 1st place (but still being in contention for second place) and being eliminated from qualification for the last 16 (unable to reach second place).
  • Not realising that Germany is currently on CEST which is UTC+2, and changing the times to UTC+1 or something else entirely.
  • A distressing number of people just enter the wrong scores, times and table statistics - I am beginning to suspect vandalism - especially the recent change to the tie-break criteria and the immediately following edit that claimed to revert the vandalism but in fact covered it up!
  • People reading the incorrect tiebreak rules still being made available by FIFA and UEFA. These rules were changed sometime in early 2006 (see webpage here) but copies of the older version of the rules are still floating around the internet.

Please add more common mistakes to the list, so hopefully people can avoid them. Thanks. Carcharoth

Tie-break confusion

Can someone check/rewrite this edit I made? I'm not entirely sure what the best way is to put this, but it does seem noteworthy that confusion has been caused by FIFA not removing/updating old documents from its website. See also the discussion at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Question_about_tie-breaking and Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Tiebreaking_scenarios and Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Common_mistakes_II. Carcharoth 10:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Match not updated!

Horror! Match not updated: 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_G - the Togo-Switzerland game hasn't been updated. I would do this, but don't know where to get the team lists from. Can someone else do this? Carcharoth 11:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Team lists taken from FIFA match report. (Though it baffles me how Togo had six forwards on the pitch.) Sam Vimes 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Can someone fix the templates right at the bottom of the page? At the moment it puts the 2006 WC inside a box headed by the Women's WC making it look like it's the women's competition. Jooler 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Slippery

Have you noticed players falling because of the slippery wet grass? Argentine sports newspaper Ole had a section on it (In Spanish, sorry), and I wanted to know if this was commented elsewere. Thanx, Mariano(t/c) 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Goalscorers Table...

Looks horrible and is a pain in the *** to read, can we go back to the list that was easy to read and looked just fine. Batman2005 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

i whole heartedly agree with you batman, i would take it out but i dont know how and thus will wait until someone else does it.

Edits

Hey guys, I was wondering, should we lock this page for unregistered users?, obviously people are updating the page when games are still being played and that's just causing confusion. Most of time it's done by unregistered users.DamianFinol 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing during a game

Can we at least wait until a match finished before updating who has gone through and who hasn't? I'm writing this DURING the Ecuador v Germany match and already the page has been updated to say that Germany have won the group. At least wait until the final whistle has been blown, c'mon! --Stenun 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the page is locked for unregistered users, most of those edits come from unregistered people who doesn't know updates should be done after matches are doneDamianFinol 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That was already done and it was decided that it was unnecessary. Most edits are constructive though - only problem is getting your edit done in time. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐
Out of interest, why was it decided it was unnecessary? I'm watching Brazil vs. Japan right now and people keep editing Group F every time someone scores a goal, instantly rendering the table inaccurate (since the stats are meant to reflect the outcome of the number of games shown in the "Pld" column). It's primarily unregistered users doing this so I think there's a very good case for banning their edits. -- Hux 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't hear it enough, Thank You for the great job you folks are doing! 3Phillips 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fussball v. Fußball

Maybe I should let this discussion rest in peace... but since nobody mentioned this:

Way back in 2000 and my school days, my teacher of German told us that as from 2001, the β (eszét) was to be replaced by "ss". She also said that it would probably persist in use - and that it would still be accepted in exams; but official (and maybe formal) writing would use the "ss" exclusively.

Obviously this is a 6-year-old memory of a word-of-mouth communication so don't rage at me if I got something wrong! └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that simple! See German spelling reform of 1996:
  • ß and ss: the letter "ß" is to appear only after long vowels and diphthongs.
  • der Fluß → der Fluss (the river)
Guinnog 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is worse than that. Because FIFA is in Switzerland the Swiss spelling gets used for the tournament. Agathoclea 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As the article I referred to mentioned, Switzerland is affected as much as Germany by the spelling reforms: "The German debate about the spelling reform produced surprise among the Swiss media outlets, rather than agreement. In Switzerland, the reform has had a less noticeable impact since the letter ß, which was the most prominent part of the reform, had not been in use anyway. Most Swiss newspapers and magazines follow house spelling rules which in the case of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland's leading daily paper, diverge substantially from the official rules. The Schweizer Monatshefte returned to the traditional Swiss spelling in 2004." --Guinnog 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stadium Names

Curious here...if the stadiums were named in german (e.g. FIFA WM Stadion München), why do we translate them? Is there some precedence? This is especially true when taken with the fact that we don't translate any of the other stadiums in the article (e.g. Olympiastadion is listed as such, rather than as Olympic Stadium, and Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion is listed as such rather than Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadium.) Why is that?82.82.175.226 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because those are official names of the stadiums, not names FIFA came up with. Batman2005 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to say thanks to you guys for keeping this article up-to-date very fast and still quite readable. I'm not familiar with the world cup enough to contribute to this but I'm interested in the results and I find this the best resource on the web for me (commercial pages have too low signal-noise ratio). – b_jonas 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Group Results Tables

OK. So now that groups are finishing up play, it seems pretty straightforward that the green vs. grey colors will identify those that advance and those that don't. We need to also be careful that the ordering of the rows indicates the first vs. second place team from each group. So far it's really clean, but then I wonder if perhaps an extra column will be needed to clarify any tie-break situations. It may not be obvious to the average Joe why with two teams with equal points, one advances and the other doesn't or why one is first and the other second. Sure, they could read through the tiebreak rules, but I am thinking of the average Joe. Would we like an extra column clarifying the tie-break outcome? Or perhaps even a column indicating place in the group. We've got time to discuss before this is likely to happen. --NThurston 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that information would go in the personal Group page for each group. I think it would be safe to assume that the average Joe would take a look in the personalized Group page if they cant find the info on the main page... and I'm sure someone (myself included) would be willing to put that information on there. (I think it would look a bit out of place on the main page, personally) ScottNak 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There's also the option of writing in the comments: Play in Group X has been completed. Team A won the group on goal average, and Team B also progressed to the second round. Team C and Team D are eliminated.
Still not clear whether there will be the commentary though. Personally I am against it. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's necessary to comment on something where it's not needed. I suppose under the table in the group-specific page we could note that because Team B had a better goal differential (as per tiebreak-rule 1) than Team C, Team B advanced to the next round. Something to that effect... Definitely wouldn't hurt... but whether or not even this is necessary... I don't know. ScottNak 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course commentary is needed!! The right way to write these articles is to imagine someone reading them in 5 or 10 years time. Things like tie-breaks do need to be explained. It might seem like "commentary" now, but later on it will help people understand what happened. Look back at the articles for all the previous World Cups, going back to 1930. If they don't explain how the leagues and qualification systems worked, how would anyone understand what was going on? Look at what happened in the 1950 FIFA World Cup which had the Maracanazo match! Carcharoth 23:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look at many other world cup articles and saw no mention of how a team won a group, or even which team won which group. All that information is clearly visible in the group table. Thus I think we should follow precedent and not add commentary to the page. Batman2005 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Carcharoth. It is common practice to include a short explanation of why a team has finished in a particular position due to a tie-break. It's unobtrusive and saves the viewer having to read the tie-break section and engage in mental gymnastics in order to figure out why one team finished ahead of another. I've edited Group C to reflect the tie-break in that group. What do you all think? -- Hux 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If its common practice, then why isn't it done for the other world cup's? Batman2005 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Oversight? You see these types of short explanation everywhere (e.g. the division tables at the end of the NFL season). It's far from uncommon. But that's not really all that relevant - the significant point is that it's a very short, unobstrusive piece of information that saves the reader a lot of hassle. On that basis I'm having trouble understanding the objection. A major function of Wikipedia is its utility, right? -- Hux 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual scorers col-3 to col-4

Looks somewhate neater, see: [10] Given the finals bracket, there will be a horizontal scrollbar anyway on small screens. See what you think, and then you can just copy & paste. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout Stages Table

I have two concerns about the table under the heading Knockout Stages. First the flags in the first column are wrapping around, like there is not enough space. That led to my second concern - why do all the boxes in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th columns have a right hand box? Surely we are not going to insert "1st" and "2nd" as that would be readily apparent by looking at the next column to the right. Could someoone remove these? (Perhaps the boxes shopuld remain for the 5th column.) One possibility is to use the green and red backgrounds as in previous tables. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alandavidson (talk • contribs).

I'm pretty sure the "right hand box" is for the score of the match. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is. See Template talk:Round16. Carcharoth 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox for redesigned Group section (post first round)

Here is my proposal for the layout of the Group sections after the first round is complete. Intention is to make the page smaller and move most of the details to the Group articles. The individual game table could do with a link named "Details" at the end of each row which goes to the respective match in the group article. -- Chuq 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I like it, but replace the red with light grey. Text is hard to read against a red background. While the group stage is ongoing, red is useful to distinguish eliminated sides from those which still might qualify for the second round, but once group play is complete, only two colors are needed. Longstanding Wikipedia practice is green and light grey. --EngineerScotty 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I find that using red for eliminated teams, and suddenly switching to grey after the group is closed, is confusing. Specially since some other groups are still playing. I propose that the eliminated teams remain with a red background. It's simpler and clearer IMHO. Frankman 15:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the red/green system is kept until all groups are finished, and then the colour system is changed to match that of previous world cups? Carcharoth 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. Let's do that. --NThurston 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice move. OK, I agree with this idea. SteveGOLD 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Group A

Main article: 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A
I've linked the scores to the match report on the Group page...? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just curious - are the FIFA match report web pages copyrighted? If so, are we getting close to the line on this? --NThurston 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You cannot copyright facts. The presentation of facts in a certain matter however is copyrighted, but this does not seem to be an issue here. Intangible 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the layout of "match results in brief" but it may clutter the page up to have these results and the match-by-match results beneath..? doktorb | words 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The intention with this design is that the "detailed match summary" (ie. the grey shaded boxes that are currently below the group table) section isn't on the main page, it would be on the group page. -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like these new formats. I actually like it how it currently is, as it provides a nice summary of each game, which has made it very convenient to compare across games. For example, it's really easy right now to find out who has scored all of Argentina's goals. These new formats make that sort of thing difficult. For me, I like having a "box score" section on this page, and asking you to get into the particular match for all the nitty-gritty. My vote: No format change --NThurston 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NThurston, and also vote against new format. SteveGOLD 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is easy to check all of Argentina's goals - just go to the Group C page. If the details match reports are annoying, have a "detailed match summary" section (like the grey boxes that are below the group table at the moment) at the top of the group C article, and then have the "detailed match reports" below that. -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the proposed change. The page is way too long. The average user (90% ?) wants to see the final result of the games at a glance. Vote: change Frankman 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Vote: change --DaveOinSF 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it -- page is far too long as it is. But, possibly, have a link to the match report? I don't know, I'm really tired, but my opinion is to change the current format to this new one. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Local time?

I could be wrong here but isn't local time in Germany UTC+1? If so, why does the article say it's UTC+2? Not going to be bold as I don't know exactly how DST works in Europe and changing it to UTC+1 will take a while. Redeem 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany is currently UTC+2 as a result of DST - see Central European Summer Time. ChrisTheDude 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

2000th goal

Allbäck had scored the 2,000th goal in FIFA World Cup history!

Anyone know who scored the 1,000th goal? Carcharoth 12:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Rob Rensenbrink. Milestones list here. I assume these are Finals goals only... – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You beat me to it by about 5 seconds there :-) ChrisTheDude 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait with baited breath for the "2000 goals from FIFA World Cups" DVD, though some of the early ones might be a problem. Seriously, are there "goals" DVDs out there, and which are the best? (I know this is not the right place to ask this - sorry). Carcharoth 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Swiss flag

Why does this one seem out-of-sync with the rest of the flags? Intangible 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's square? -- Arwel (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is the only square flag other than that of the Vatican City. Kiwi8 14:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The Flag of Switzerland is square =P (gotta get those Wikilinks in.....) doktorb | words 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be worse - Flag of Nepal -  Nepal -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Song at the end of every game

Does anybody know what's that song they play shortly after the conclusion of every game (within seconds of the game ending). It sounds like "Go West" by the Pet Shop Boys LOL. Anber 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Standings (Updated)

Final standings are starting to take shape. Put on main page or a sub-page?

Rk* Team Pts Pld W D L GF GA GD
25  Paraguay 3 3 1 0 2 2 2 0
26  Ivory Coast 3 3 1 0 2 5 6 -1
27  Poland 3 3 1 0 2 2 4 -2
28  Angola 2 3 0 2 1 1 2 -1
29  Iran 1 3 0 1 2 2 6 -4
30  Trinidad and Tobago 1 3 0 1 2 0 4 -4
31  Costa Rica 0 3 0 0 3 3 9 -6
32  Serbia and Montenegro 0 3 0 0 3 2 10 -8

*Subject to change as more teams complete their schedule --DaveOinSF 23:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think is unfair to compare teams in different groups. -Lemke --201.34.150.207 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't include it at all, right now its purely speculation...sure that's how WE think it'll end up, but what if FIFA changes around criteria? Wait until FIFA releases something officially ranking the teams, then we can link to it. Batman2005 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the FIFA has a Final Standings, but I think they don't publish them nutil the end of the competition. I'm also not sure if they only use the final table for assigning the final positions for the 16 temas that didn't reach second round. Mariano(t/c) 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Rk* Team Pts Pld W D L GF GA GD
21  Paraguay 3 3 1 0 2 2 2 0
22  Czech Republic 3 3 1 0 2 3 4 -1
23  Ivory Coast 3 3 1 0 2 5 6 -1
24  Poland 3 3 1 0 2 2 4 -2
25  Croatia 2 3 0 2 1 2 3 -1
26  Angola 2 3 0 2 1 1 2 -1
27t  Iran 1 3 0 1 2 2 6 -4
27t  United States 1 3 0 1 2 2 6 -4
29  Trinidad and Tobago 1 3 0 1 2 0 4 -4
30  Japan 1 3 0 1 2 2 7 -5
31  Costa Rica 0 3 0 0 3 3 9 -6
32  Serbia and Montenegro 0 3 0 0 3 2 10 -8

*Subject to change as more teams complete their schedule--DaveOinSF 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is comparing apples to oranges, it makes no sense at all, it's a statistical deception and should not be on this page for sure. Jooler 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gold for Brazil and Spain incorrect

Brazil and Spain are coloured in a gold colour in the group boxes on the main page, but neither is guaranteed first place (could end up in tie for points and lose on goal differential, as is stated correctly on subpages). However, as the definition for each colour has changed (gold for first place, green for second and white for could qualify but could be eliminated), there's no colour for qualified but place not determined. I should really be sleeping and so can't think of a good solution that will incorporate the new changes but not be tacky by adding new colours, and so I won't be bold and will let someone awake think. Telso 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well. It's been rightly reverted. Hopefully the user who made the change quits it. It should be the way its normally been, green for qualified, red for eliminated, white for unknown and eventually go to the FIFA standard with green = qualify / grey = out at the end of group play (friday) ScottNak 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's keep it simple folks. For the moment let's keep it as green for qualified and red for eliminated. Having different colours only needlessly confuses the group tables. Mitch119 10:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In making the change to gold and back, Brazil and Spain had the background changed to white - but it should be green as they both have qualified for the second round - it is just not known whether it is 1st or 2nd place. I have changed these back to green.
I was the one who changed Brazil and Spain from gold to white since green, at that time, didn't mean what it does now. Now that the definition for green has been changed I think the system is fine as-is. There's no real need to have a separate color for teams that have finished their groups in first and second place, imo, as the team position in the group table, along with the number of games played, already indicates that. -- Hux 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Goals scored

Why are some of the players listed as goal scorers using their nicknames rather than their real names (eg players from Brazil and Portugal). -- SGBailey 11:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that they are listed with the names by which people most commonly refer to them in a football context. And they are a lot shorter too. Andymarczak 11:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because if you put "Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite" nobody would have any idea who you were talking about. But when you put "Kaka" instead...then everyone knows who you're talking about. Those names are common usage names so that's why they're used here. Batman2005 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Additionally in Portugal and Brazil, the names they go by are as real as their birth names. A person in Brazil can go through their entire life going by the name "Kaka" and never by the name "Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite." Batman2005 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Goal times

I see some of the time for a goal have a + sign after them (eg "Neville (92+)" ). What is the meaning of the "+"? I can't see it defined anywhere? I expect it means in "extra time" but whatever it needs either a definition or removing. -- SGBailey 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that stands for injury time. This is to distinguish the time from added time. ----WinHunter (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It stands for goals scored during time added on in either the first or second half. A goal scored in the second minute of added time in the first half would be listed as "47+" A goal scored in the 7th minute of extra time in the knockout stages would be listed as "97" Batman2005 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition to helping distinguish between goals scored in injury time during regulation and "over time," this designation is very useful in that it allows us to distinguish from a goal scored in the 47th minute of the first half (47+) and the second minute of the second half (47). Any interest in an explanatory footnote somewhere? --NThurston 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also... Is it 46'+ or 46+'? In the game I though I saw 46'+, but here is 46+' (for the last Brasil game)... Also, is it official the 90' time style display?

BBC get qualification scenario wrong for Group G!

And Wikipedia get it right of course!

See BBC scenario for Group G and compare to Wikipedia scenario for Group G.

BBC: "If Switzerland draw with Korea and France score two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify."

Wikipedia: "France [...] may qualify as either group winners or runners up, or be eliminated, after the consideration of tie-break scenarios, if they win and Korea and Switzerland draw."

The clear refutations of the BBC's statement are the following examples, where France do indeed score two or more goals, but can still be eliminated:

  • Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 0-0 Korea - Lots will be drawn to determine whether France or Korea advances; loser of the draw is eliminated.
  • Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 1-1 Korea - Korea advances on goals scored, France is eliminated.

To be fair, the BBC probably meant to say If Switzerland draw with Korea and France win by a margin of two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify.

But as it stands, the BBC statement is clearly wrong. Carcharoth 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang! I should have got a screenshot. They've corrected it. Carcharoth 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha... there is no way Wikipedia can get it wrong with the intelligence of many of us contributing to the editing. Well done folks. :) Kiwi8 18:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, what is with the Group 16? Most of the teams that are shown to have gone through, have actually been knocked out. Why is Russia there? They didn't even participate in the World Cup.

Stages chart

Someone seems to have vadalized the chart.

Anonymous IP edits

I just reinstated Group G after it being completely missing for the last 20-30 edits, and no-one fixing it. Don't have time now (it's half time break at Aus-Cro) but this is a good reason for (a) semi-protection of the article (b) all edits made DURING a game being reverted. -- Chuq 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, one vandalised edit to an article is not enough for semi-protection. We've kicked around semi-protection over and over again on this page and just because someone is an IP editor doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit a page. Additionally, reverting all edits during a game is a horrible precedent to set as you'll also be removing the mostly positive and accurate edits. This page so stay as is and the thousands of people who spend all day on here will continue to revert vandalism. But as I look through the edit history, quite a bit of positive contributions are coming from IP editors. Batman2005 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ditto that. It's quite impressive actually at how quickly errors are corrected (usually) and how almost all edits are in the right direction, regardless of source. With so many eyes watching, mistakes are being caught rather quickly. Besides, many small changes over time leads to a good article. --NThurston 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the two opinions above. Apart from the occasional thing that gets missed, everyone is doing a great job of keeping the page vandalism free. Having counted the number of reverts in the last 100 edits, we're running at about 7 or 8%. Which is well below the level that I would apply semi-protection. --GraemeL (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I temporarily put this article on semi-protection again because for the past hour, numerous IPs were replacing all references of Italy with Turkey. I think semi-protection should only be used temporarily there is massive vandalism that needs to be correcting. However, I will probably release this protection soon as per WP:PPOL: it is high profile and linked off the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. --GraemeL (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I went back through the list of IPs involved in the Turkey vandalism. At least 5 of them were open proxies, which I've blocked indefinitely. Depending on how determined our vandal is, short term protection might not be enough. All depends on his patience and how large his list of open proxies is. --GraemeL (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll just clarify what I meant - I don't think the deletion of Group G is the reason for semi-protection - I mean the fact that there are 20-30 edits by anonymous IPs, most of which have been changes to figures (points, goal differences in tables, of games that were in progress at the time), which were unsourced, and also had no edit summary. Basically, I felt bad, because when editing a page I make a habit of checking all the recent anonymous edits for undetected vandalism - but the half time break was only 10minutes and I just didn't have time to do it! -- Chuq 03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Round of 16 quirks

It seems to be that the icon for the Netherlands is missing in the Round of 16 map. Can anyone fix it? Thanks. Kiwi8 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be OK now. --NThurston 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no, the problem is still there. Kiwi8 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that the problem lies with the NEDf template, but I do not know how to fix it. Can anybody help? Kiwi8 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Flags in 2nd column are wrong?

Brazil can still get 2nd in Group F if Australia wins by a big enough margin and only Australia and Brazil can get first. SandBoxer 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now a moot point. --NThurston 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Graham Poll

Three times yellow is red :-) Intangible 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha i know this needs to be included in the article that is pure english comedy, hes our best ref as well. --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Care to fill me in? --NThurston 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Siminuic Josip in the Croatia/Australia game actually got 3 yellow cards in the game followed by the red. (Must've forgot to pull the red at the 2nd or something... haha) ScottNak 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Croatia-Australia

If Croatia has -1 and Australia 0, and they tied in the game, both will recieve 1 point. So Croatia 0, Australia 0! and Brazil already qualified... what will happpen

--Petrovic-Njegos 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what you are asking. Kiwi8 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems you are confused between goal differential and points. If Croatis has -1 and they tie, they are still -1 in goal differential. I guess.... --NThurston 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll gave SIMUNIC 3 yellow cards at 61mins, 90mins and 93mins before he sent him off. and hes top of the fifa referee world rankings

What a crazy game, nobody knew what was going on at the end. According to the official site, Kovac was sent off first. According to Livescore, it was Simic. It was obvious that Simunic got three cards, BBC says the ref forgot to send him off, but I swear I saw the red come off. He kept playing anyway. And then why was that last goal not allowed? Jamesinclair 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The last goal was disallowed probably because Poll had blew for fulltime before the ball went into the net. Anyway, the incident of the 3 yellow cards to the same player is hilarious! :p Kiwi8 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesnt make sense though. Why would he end the match while the ball was in play inside the area? Also, while the Fifa report has omitted the 3 cards, read over neutral reports, such as the ESPN gamecast. They clearly mention the incident. Itll be a major topic of discussion anyway, everyone whow as watching the game saw it.
For your information, the referee does not have to wait to blow for fulltime even if the ball is in the penalty area, especially if the result doesn't depend on whether the ball results in a goal or not. Not to mention, the stipulated injury time was surpassed and exceeded by close to a minute. Kiwi8 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Youre right, he can stop it, but its courtesy not to, and let the play finish. Ive just rewatched the game and its clear that 3 yellow cards were in fact given to Simunic. I hope that ref wont be coming back, although he did allow for an exciting game... Jamesinclair 06:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That does sound crazy!! Missed the game, unfortunately. Had to get some work done. I'll look at the FIFA live broadcast to see how they scored it. --NThurston 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Matchcast shows only a foul at 91+' (on Kenndy, no card), followed by Yellow (93+) and a Red (93+) for the 2Y. --NThurston 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA removed the 90' (2nd) yellow card from the official report, but it's there on the stadium report - the one given to reporters. Rai TV showed all 3 yellow cards too. They also said that Croatia can use it as grounds to annull the match (even if they had the extra player, by the reasoning that the player could cause a penalty for example - explained by a former referee). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Poll did not show the red, and the ref on Rai says that since it's not cheating (the player is not bound to count the number of yellow cards he gets), the game has to be repeated -- tomorrow. It's imperative to stick with the rules - it may be unfair for Australia but not applying the rules as they are written would put in serious jeopardy the credibility of the whole system (especially after FIFA made such a fuss about applying the rules to the letter for yellows and reds!). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 22:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like that's why there are five referees. Isn't one of the 4th's jobs to keep a separate record of the match? And with the new headphones and microphones, it should never have happened, seems like, anyway. --NThurston 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not all the referees are linked up by microphone to the referee. I'm wondering how long it will be before the players have devices to let them know when the linesman has signalled for offside - that would avoid players getting yellow cards when they fail to hear the whistle. Anyway Sepp Blatter said that the assistant referee should have "run on to the pitch" and yelled "Stop, stop!" or something! Carcharoth 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You must be dreaming. There is no way the match will be repeated. anonymous comment by 210.49.28.25
Does seem rather unlikely that an error that favored the losing team could be grounds for an appeal by the losing team to re-play the match. Certainly, Croatia was not harmed by the extra three minutes he spent on the pitch, were they? --NThurston 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying what the ref on Rai said. I surely have not enough knowledge of FIFA rules to give any opinion whatsoever (I'm so not up-to-date that I only got to know that penalty-takers are now allowed to dance around before kicking some 6 months ago!). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The annullation of the match aside, one still has to note that there have been some serious irregularities following the match. FIFA's Guidelines for Match Officials [11] article 11(d) says: (d) The commissioner shall discuss any incidents that have occurred during the match with the referee and also check the details of players who were cautioned or sent off. He shall make sure that the referee has filled in his report correctly and objectively (without omitting any incidents). Any points which may seem unclear or irrelevant have to be clarified. Below that it's also specified that referee and commissioner shall telefax to FIFA independent match reports. If that 90' yellow doesn't appear in the official report, collusion of referee and commission are more than plausable! Looks like FIFA are trying to hide the mistake. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA are a disgrace for changing their website from three yellows to two. Its there for all to see on the video tape - three cards were given. Why doesn't FIFA just be honest? It was a mistake, but don't compound it now by trying to cover it up. The ref had a shocker. The first "rugby tackle" on Viduka should have been a penalty,, and the last goal was inside the 3 minutes of extra time. Luckily it has not affected the outcome, otherwise Oceania would yet again have been dudded by the south american dominated FIFA!! Greynurse 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There exist irregularities during the match, though I would stop short of accusing FIFA about anything. I believe this note from 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group F should be the best way of describing the situation until any official explaination is announced: "The original FIFA match report listed all three yellow cards, however was revised shortly after, with the second yellow card (90') not being recorded; it is unknown whether this was for consistency in the reports, or whether the card was retrospectively overturned."--WinHunter (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I am with the Greynurse on this one. Smacks of FIFA trying (and failing) to cover up a mistake. Why change a report otherwise? You just can't say it didn't happen, when the replay I just watched clearly showed it did. What a truly weird game. So much for the 4th official and Assistant Refs!!141.168.13.33 10:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not all the referees are linked up by microphone to the referee. I'm wondering how long it will be before the players have devices to let them know when the linesman has signalled for offside - that would avoid players getting yellow cards when they fail to hear the whistle. Anyway Sepp Blatter said that the assistant referee should have "run on to the pitch" and yelled "Stop, stop!" or something! But then I guess Poll would have shown the assitant referee a red card... I have also heard reports that Poll claimed that he got the names of Simunic and Simic confused, but that excuse (which is pretty pathetic anyway) doesn't wash because Simic had been sent off himself 5 minutes earlier!
Anyway, if you want to talk about dodgy things, how about the two handballs by the same Croatian player. It looked to me like he deliberately handled the balls, but more in the "trying to give away a penalty" sense, instead of the "trying to handle the ball without anyone seeing" sense. Though why he would do that, I have no idea. Carcharoth 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
When I watched the replay, Australia's third goal was scored exactly five seconds from the throw in from the sideline. And to the best of my judgment, the referee blew full time four seconds after the throw in; a bare one second before the goal. The ball had passed two attempted headers, was in the penalty area and Aloisi was rushing towards it to score. I could see no reaction by the goal keeper or anyone else to the full time whistle - in other words they made real attempts to stop the goal but failed. How could any referee blow full time in this position. This is very significant. It would have been Australia's second win ever in world cup finals. This point seems somewhat overlooked with all the other controversy.Alan Davidson 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't have that much importance except for statistics though. The referee is, by the rules at least, free to stop the game at whatever time he wants, except for a penalty. Still, I do not understand why Poll did that... very strange. He messed up this game real bad. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
After the game, Argentine former ref Javier Castrilli said about the incident: Referees make mistakes. That's why we have the assistants. All four of the assistants should have caught the error and "invaded" the field. Under no circumstances should an assistant "permit" the referee to continue with a player on the field that shouldn't be there. He laid most of the blame on the assistants (especially 4th and 5th, US guys by the way) who really should have caught that. Poll must really feel alone in his error, because none of his "friends" gave him any help in avoiding the embarrassment that certainly will follow. --12.72.182.91 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
And also, you would hope that the media commentators, spectators, managers, players, anyone, would tell the assistant referees as soon as possible, so they can tell the referee. Admittedly, in this case there was barely enough time to do this. I think possibly Poll and his team (linesmen) will get one more game, but not more than that. The 4th and 5th referees will almost certainly be sent home. Carcharoth 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quarter Finals: "Winner" vs. flags

Seems to be a bone of contention. Can we agree that there is no point is putting "flag 1" or "flag 2" in that chart? It is plenty helpful to just say Winner of R1. --NThurston 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Results

Forgive me, but it looks like someone decided to change all the Italian flags to Turkish ones, and went on to replace every instance of "Italy" with "Turkey", then went even further to try and edit out Italian players who scored goals and put in Turkish players.

Unfortunately, I don't have the sources or the knowledge to go through and replace all the Italian players in this article, but I think that this really should be a semi-protected page, due to the vandalism.

I agree... the change is deliberate and is definitely vandalism.

Turkey Vs. Italy

Somebody vandalized this web and changed all the Italian flags to Turkish ones.....

Can we get a moderator or someone to disallow editing from unregistered users until this stops? Cerberus584 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Better to report them quickly and get them blocked. This user 88.240.177.3 has been blocked for 3 hours. If they come back, please notify the administrators. Glad to see that even nasty vandalism is dealt with quickly as in this case. Such a pain to have to do it though.--NThurston 21:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout Stages Flags

Stop editing the spacing! I just finished editing the flags for the Spain group and someone removed it. Please revert to my edit. --Harmonica 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been widespread disagreement on this for a long time. Please discuss on Talk page (see above) before putting more time into changes that will cause more people to probably waste time changing them back. --NThurston 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought this was a different question. The reason why there are no flags in that box is because all 4 teams could still place 2nd. It took me a while to figure that out, too, but I agree that there is not point in putting all four flags in both boxes, and it wouldn't be accurate to put just three in there. --NThurston 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I just worked that I'd missed out Spain and had then put all four into the box, but then there had been updates and I couldn't work out what was merging, so I left it alone anyway! Didn't realise we weren't putting all four into boxes --Harmonica 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Took me about two full days to figure out the "no 4" rule. But I didn't have the energy to put all four in anyway. --NThurston 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealing quickly with vandalism on this page

My recommendation -

  • First Step: Go to the person's talk page, and place a vandalism warning {{subst:test3}} or {{subst:test4}}. This is important because it is a prerequisite for getting an admin to block them.
  • Second step: Start fixing the vandalism, preferably by reverting to the last known 'good' version. Even if you miss a recent edit, those are usually easier to add than to try to 'undo' all the damage yourself.
  • Third Step: Watch for the vandal to return. If they do, then you can add them to the vandal action list: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Usually it takes less than a minute for a blatant, pre-warned vandal to get blocked.

--NThurston 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2002 FIFA World Cup page formatting broken

I know this isn't the right place to raise this, but I thought I'd get a quicker response here. The 2002_FIFA_World_Cup page doesn't display properly for me, and maybe for everyone else as well. Lots of strange white space at the top. Can someone fix it, please? Carcharoth 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if its moot now, but it looks perfectly fine as is.ScottNak 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Looks OK now. Don't know what was happening there. Carcharoth 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM: Italy replaced by Turkey

Can someone repair the vandalim in Group E, where Italy has been replaced by Turkey?

TURKEY failed to qualify for the World Cup finals

A lot of anonymous editors seem to think Turkey had the quality to qualify into the World Cup finals. This is not true, unlike rising stars such as Angola and Trinidia+Tobago, they failed to qualify so please stop adding them into the article. Maybe you could cheer on Ghana instead? - Hahnchen 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Group articles

A point about the groups articles:

These are not being edited consistently, but hopefully they will all look the same once things have settled down. One thing I did notice was that Group C had place numbers (1-4) in the table. This looks rather nice. Should it be applied to all the tables? Carcharoth 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah group C has better sized flags and line ups etc. Hopefully someone will do this for every group.
No, numbers make it too cluttered. The order is obvious when all is said and done. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My vote - NO. Current template is very informative and in same case simple. It's most good variant. SteveGOLD

Concur for the NO vote. I have used this page as my home source for the WC this year. Dont change a thing. Heathebe05 11:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The field diagrams on the group C page look nice but they have to be generated manually for each game. A precedent that could end up very time consuming. I vote NO as well - stick with the simpler display. -- Chuq 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The field diagrams is a different issue to the numbering. I don't have strong opinions either way, but would like the tables (which this page has in common with the group pages) to look the same. Carcharoth 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are around 4 edits per minute in the afternoon here. I dare say we have enough manpower to do most things. Better do the field diagrams now when there's a lot of interest and up-to-date information running around, then later. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

where did the knockout stage bracket go?

its not there. did someone make a new article and move it?

knockout

who took off the knockout brackets??!!

63.93.197.67 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's back now...

Knockout Stages chart--Quarter-finals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stages

What is the point of writing down the four possible teams for a quarter-final match? It just clutters the page. It's pretty obvious who the potential teams are. I say to leave the Quarter-finals and further brackets blank until there is a winner in the previous round. Dav2008 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC) edit: (I'm talking about the bracket itself, not the match listings underneath the bracket)

I agree, the table already serve the purpose. --WinHunter (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too - it looks silly and cluttered. Also, if we start the precedent of labelling matches before they're played, some peolpe go as far as listing al 16 teams which cuold play in the final. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to get rid of them, but someone, please do it. - Lina Zargova - 1:06 (eastern) June 23

One team from each confederation?

If Korea qualifies for the Round of 16 then this will be the first World Cup where at least one team qualifying from every confederation will have progressed into the knockout stage. The teams are : AFC(Korea Republic?), CAF(Ghana), CONCACAF(Mexico), CONMEBOL(Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil), OFC(Australia), and UEFA(Germany, England, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, France/Switzerland). It is also the first time ever that a team qulifying from OFC has made the knockout stage.--KiwiDave 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that Australia left OFC for AFC just before the World Cup. But they qualified as members of OFC, so your remark is valid anyways. 130.251.4.11 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Flag

Hi, I;m new to the site but why is Germany represented by the Nazi flag in the groups sections?

Mhm I don't see it....Where specifically? PerfectStorm 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because some people are jackasses who like to vandalize. Only Germany's current flag should be there. - Lina Zargova 1:02, June 23

I'm sure if I were German i'd be upset, but man that's kinda funny. Batman2005 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Qualifying Countries Map

Maybe someone could modify the map so that teams that advanced to the round of 16 have a different color. And then teams who advance to the next round have yet another color and so on. Am i the only one who thinks this is a good idea? Arg2k 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Someone modified the flags and team names of the 06/23 match (Ukraine vs Turkey), so now it says Ukraine vs Ukraine, someone please fix it. By the way, i think that USA scored an own goal, if they did we have to modify the own goal section at the end of the article. Sorry for any mistakes, i´m pretty new at wikipedia and my mother languaje is spanish. - PlaGa701 13:37 (GTM -4:00) June 23

Can we please restrict this page to registered users only? I don't understand why it's so hard. All of the vandals I've seen have just been small random edits by unregistered users. Dav2008 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, good idea. PerfectStorm 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's a strong bias against semi-protecting articles - I think it would be a good idea to semi-protect this article, but I'm pretty sure someone would quickly unprotect it and say we should simply block the vandals. If I hadn't already edited this article in the past, I'd semi-protect it myself, but it's a big no-no for admins to do that! -- Arwel (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of getting to a ridiculous level. Too many things are getting nuked n' altered... we need some protection! Aiye. ScottNak 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout tree

I'm removing the potential teams from the quarterfinal stages - they clutter things up add they add no new information. For the rounds of 16 it was valid because the potential teams changed over time, but if you can't figure out who could be in a given quarterfinal from the round of 16 matches then the whole tree must be a mystery to you. Note we didn't put potential teams in R16 when all four still had a chance. Moszczynski 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. It clutters and adds nothing new. -- Deville (Talk) 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree. This will give many a quick insite on the teams that had a potential of making it to the round of 16, without having to navigate through each group table. If you dont know the flag, just click on the image and you'll find out ken (ken) 19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The standard template for World Cup pages is to not have the group stages in the Knockout Tree, and it would be redundant to keep them in there. Xombie 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Archival

It's time to archive the Talk page again. Just to give a heads up in advance -- I'll do it at 0:00 CEST (World Cup Time :P). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Scorers

What has happened to the top scorers section?

Oh it's back, never mind.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_4&oldid=1136312208"