Talk:1966 FIFA World Cup Final

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on 1966 FIFA World Cup Final is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

What do the rules say about fans entering the pitch?

I'd like to identify all the players in the famous photo. I think they are (left to right):

Jackie Charlton (top left), Nobby Stiles? (bottom left), Gordon Banks, Alan Ball, Martin Peters?, Geoff Hurst, Bobby Moore, George Cohen?, Ray Wilson?, Bobby Charlton.

Can anyone confirm? --Auximines 13:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I agree. You are definitely right about Stiles and Peters. Not so sure about Cohen and Wilson. Who is the barely discenable player between Peters and Hurst? I'm sure it is a player, they seem to have a red top on. Is it Roger Hunt? David Thrale 13:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found this photo (a copy of which was once on my bedroom wall), which has all the names:[1]. You were right: I can see now that I had Cohen and Wilson the wrong way round (similar faces, but Cohen has more hair up top!) . By a process of elimination, the barely visible player must be Hunt. So here's the line-up:

Jackie Charlton (top left), Nobby Stiles (bottom left), Gordon Banks, Alan Ball, Martin Peters, Roger Hunt (barely visible behind Peters), Geoff Hurst, Bobby Moore, Ray Wilson, George Cohen, Bobby Charlton.

I'll try to add this list of players to the photo caption. --Auximines 09:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move for consistency

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial third and fourth goals

I'm finding it hard to cite that many people consider the fourth goal controversial. Wouldn't it come under the (admittedly slippery) category of common sense, when viewed alongside the relevant rule that I already quoted? FWIW I have always heard other Scots regard it as controversial; of course, you may not regard Scots as neutrals in this instance! --Guinnog 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone moaning about the last goal. So I'm not suprised you can't find a cite for it, and so the text should be changed or removed. Jooler 13:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Guinnog 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says "Allowing the fourth goal to stand, although it was scored as a pitch invasion was in progress, was, like the award of the third goal, an example of home advantage. The laws of the game clearly state that the game should be stopped in such circumstances [2]." - This is a clear example of someone trying to push a POV. I haven't looked into the edit history. Jooler 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking to me, as it was me who wrote that. Which POV are you accusing me of trying to push, exactly? --Guinnog 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not get into a slanging match over this. I hadn't even looked at the edit history. I'll depart and let others decide. Jooler 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the info after an IP editor deleted it with an abusive edit summary. The controversy about the third and fourth goals seems not only straightforward but well-referenced to me. Anybody disagree? I'd rather argue it out here than get into an edit war. Thanks --Guinnog 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok my problem with the article is that you describe the game which is fine and then you add the "Controversial third and fourth England goals" paragraph which is IMO totally out of order. My problem is not about saying that refereeing mistakes were made. It's the way you seem to be stressing that they were made intentionally (This has definetly never been proven and is at the very least a POV. If it took an Oxford University computer study to determine that the ball hadn't crossed the line then it is absolutely possible that the referee made a mistake in "good faith", the fact that Roger Hunt stopped playing must have contributed to the mistake) and in England's favour (letting the game continue when fans had come onto the pitch was not in anybody's favour, right England scored but the german defenders continued to play, this goal isn't even disputed by german fans). Also if you are going to mention the controversial decisions then you should add the free kick that lead to Germany's second goal. That was an absolutely scandalous decision (to award it). Plus the ball hit a german player's hand before going in (which is just as controversial). If you are going to mention controversial moments you should mention them all not only the ones in "England's favour". I would be satisfied with the article if you moved the part about the Oxford University study to the "Extra time" section and deleted the "Controversial third and fourth England goals" paragraph (the bit about the 4th goal being controversial is already in the "Extra time" section anyway). Most of the content of the article is correct (and I do not dispute it) it's the way it is presented that is dishonest. Also the bits that go along the lines of "in Germany it is commonly believed..." have got nothing to do on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your considered and sensible response. I'll have a think about your suggestions towards improving the article. I may copy them to the article's discussion page as well, so that others can join the discussion. That's how things are improved here in my experience. Thanks again.--Guinnog 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence "The laws of the game clearly state that in such circumstances, the game has to be stopped because of outside interference of any kind". That law isn't clear at all. What exactly is "outside interference". Certainly I don't think the pitch invasion could be deemed "outside interference" since thet were nowhere near the ball and both team continued to play as normal.--82.6.163.253 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please then name me a few games where the match has been allowed to continue during a pitch invasion. --Guinnog 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any football matches with pitch invasions during play period. There is a famous amrican football game called "the play" where that happened and play continued. However I think that's rarther beside the piont. --Buc 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So why did you revert the article then? I agree it's beside the point what happened once in an entirely different sport. The laws of football are entirely clear and unambiguous, as the article says. Please don't remove verifiable information from it again. --Guinnog 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The question I was aking was not, has it ever happened? it was what the rules means because to me it's unclear.--Buc 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog you haven't reacted to my comment: How comes the controversial decisions "in England's favour" are mentioned twice and are even given a whole extra paragraph while the decisions in Germany's favour (like the controversial free kick that was awarded and that lead to the 2nd german goal) are not even mentioned? How can this article claim to be fair? You are clearly pushing a POV.

I thought it was obvious. The "controversial" free kick is an everyday run-of-the-mill we-wuz-robbed incident, such as occurs in almost every football match. England's third and fourth goals were both apparently scored in flagrant breach of the laws of the game. Or, to put it simply, one is notable and verifiable (per WP:V), and one isn't. --Guinnog 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I don't think you can say the fourth goals controversy is notable. I've never heard anyone talk about it till now.--Buc 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See the laws of the game then. --Guinnog 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you need a better sourse than that. As said before the rule seems unclear.Buc 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And as I also said before, if you think the rule is unclear, maybe you can provide a list of a few other major football matches where play has continued during an invasion. I changed the wording though, to give a more neutral appearance. What do you think? --Guinnog 09:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And also as said before it's got nothingh to do with whether play has continued during an invasion in other matches. It's to do with the rule simply not being clear.Buc 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me. --Guinnog 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that I have never heard anyone ever before complain about the 4th goal being "controversial", I would say that the emphasis given to its "controversy" in this article counts as original research. Forget whether it was within the rules or not, the point is is it "controversial"? Has it ever been a sore point over which there has been as much debate as the third goal? If there is no substantial evidence of a controversy arising from the goal, then it is by definition not controversial. Jooler 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the suggestion seems to be that as soon as the first person put a foot onto the pitch the Ref should have blown up. Well he didn't, and I doubt that any Ref ever has. Jooler 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that suggestion in the article. I would have thought that the straightforward reference to the rule that the ref didn't enforce on the day was evidence enough for controversy, but I will try to find a more specific reference to the controversy. --Guinnog 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Law says "stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind;" - the key word is "interference". - Whether a member of the crowd on the pitch is interferring with play is open to interpretation, but the article says "the laws of the game state that in such circumstances, the game has to be stopped". Jooler 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I would have thought it obvious that a pitch invasion would constitute interference and cannot think of a single other example where a match has been allowed to continue during one. As I said I will try and find a more specific reference though. --Guinnog 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"It seems pretty clear to me." Well it's not. "I would have thought it obvious that a pitch invasion would constitute interference" They were nowhere near the ball. How can they have been interfering. "cannot think of a match has been allowed to continue during one" that doesn't proove asnything. Except that pitch invasions are very rare. Buc 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Especially a few seconbds before the final whistle. They key thing here though is about the so-called "controversy". Did the Germans complain about it after the game? Without any evidence to say that they did I can't see how it can be called controversial. Jooler 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of no evidence being produced to suggest that any controversy or complaint arose from the fourth goal, nand am removing this from the paragraph. Jooler 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jooler, you are looking for a controversy, and you have one now: stop pushing your POV, and don't try again to delete the section on the circumstances of the fourth goal. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's the evidence? Jooler 10:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me - Please find a cited reference for controversy and please amend your tone. I have avoided being dragged into dispute on this page for months, and since I first raised the issue in June (after Guinnog said he couldn't find any citations for such a controversy) no-one has been able to come up with any evidence and several people have objected to the words. Before I deleted it, the para had been considerably watered down (not by me I hasnten to add) so that it said "it is commonly believed that in the spirit of the game the goal was fair. Few Germans dispute the validity of the 4th goal" - that's practically spitting distance from saying there is no controversy. If YOU think that there is controversy over the goal but cannot provide any citations them I am afraid that it is you who are pushing a POV and promoting original research. Jooler 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You want evidence for a controversy? You are the controversy, trying to whitewash the very "lucky" circumstances of England's only WC win. Apart from that, there is no controversy, as it is not disputed that people were on the field. I do not have to prove this fact, you do have to disprove it if you want to delete the section. There is a whole Wikipedia article (They think it's all over) on the issue, Yahoo mentions it, but you try to delete this fact! Is it in the spirit of the game that English hooligans can do in Wembley as they please, and noone is allowed to talk about it? The English media should have paid more attention to it, maybe that would have prevented Heysel Stadium disaster and Hillsborough disaster. There was no point for the German team and the media to make a fuss about the fourth goal, as the third (non) goal had been the deciding factor anyway. Germany had to attack and score an equaliser now, and this opened opportunities for the English, but they couldn't score in 9 minutes with only 11 men on the field. In comparison, Italy was much quicker in nailing the coffin during in the 2006 semifinal. The end of the game was anything but proper, and this fact will not be forgotten nor deleted from Wikipedia articles. Besides, Germans have played in seven World Cup finals, more than any other nation, winning three and losing three fair and square, with the 1966 game being the odd one out. Germans are not as bad losers as the Argentinians, who started to fight after they had lost the 2006 quarterfinal. The 1966 circumstances will remain recorded for posterity. End of discussion. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that there is controversy surrounding the forth goal. But I am going to question the notability of it. Particularly in comparison to the controversy surrounding the third goal. Also the rule regarding it is unclear. What exactly is “outside interference of any kind”? To me for a pitch invasion to be interfering the fans involved have to either but in an area of the field close to the ball, be making physical contact with a player or distract a player to stop playing. None of these were the case in 1966. Buc 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt. Please try to remain calm. I'm a little alarmed that you have decided to rant about hooliganism and Heysel Stadium in response here. There were people on the pitch and Jeff Hurst scored a goal. That in itself does not make a controversy. Did anyone go up to the Ref and complain about the goal? Did the German FA make a protest to FIFA? Did the German media report that the goal should not stand? Did any German player subsequently say in an interview that the goal should have been disallowed? Was there ever been any kind of protest by anyone whatsoever as to the validity of the goal? If the answer to all of these is no then there is no controversy. If the answer to all of these questions is no and you still maintain that there is controversy and the word controversy should be used in relation to the goal then I assert you are generating the controversy and on Wikipedia that amounts to original research. I have absolutely no problem with stating that the goal was scored when people were on the pitch. Everyone in England knows that and as you state we even have an article on it. But I have a major problem with you insisting that those facts alone make it a controversy. BTW the words "The Referee stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind" are taken from the notes to Law 5 of the current LOTG. Unless someone can prove that these words were the same as used in the LOTG for the 1966 World Cup I don't see how you can justify their use in this article. Jooler 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)