Talk:Urs Meier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Ah, that makes more sense. Good addition to the article. - Tεxτurε 15:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not the first time this ref has courted controversy. As well as the controversial decision in the Romania game, he had to be escorted off the pitch after giving Lyon a penalty against Celtic in the last few minutes of a Champion's League match last year, for a perceived handball offence. Mintguy (T) 11:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The mention of the Terry/Campbell foul in the England-Portugal game is rather silly, it was a pretty apparent obstruction of the goalkeeper within the five meter box and it was perfectly within the referee's jurisdiction to award a foul to the defending team. The laws of the game explicitely say how interference with the keeper is not legal, and there is in fact a reminder saying "it is an offence to restrict the movement of the goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him at the taking of a corner kick". Sure, the goal would probably have decided the game, but we can't blame the refs from doing their job just because it's a tight match. I'm sure Urs Meier has done much more obvious mistakes that would deserve a mention -- but this isn't one of them. --Shallot 12:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to bang on and say "we woz robbed" or anything, these things happen in football, but it was clearly a goal. This may be the explanation [1]Mintguy (T)

I don't get it. Do you mean to say that the media/fans in England are just pissed off and will come up with various excuses of why they didn't progress in the tournament, regardless of whether they make sense or not? ;) --Shallot 20:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's called humour. The English cope with misery by laughing at it. Often at their own expense. e.g. [2] Mintguy (T) 21:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was it a corner? I thought it was in open play, the ball bounced off the crossbar first anyway, there was no suspected offence when the ball was played into the 18-yard box.

IIRC it was a corner, but I could be wrong. In any event it's a common practice for referees to whistle at any kind of 2 on 1 obstruction of the goalkeeper in their inner box. Similarly to how it's common practice to whistle after an attacker makes a run past the defence and is pulled down from behind by a defender -- it can be pretty much any kind of contact or even the attacker taking a leap, chances are it'll be marked as a foul. --Shallot 20:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was a free kick taken by Beckham. But the point is there was no foul. Urs Meier indicated that he disallowed the goal because of pushing by Terry, but there was no pushing. You claim there was obstruction, this implies that Terry deliberately put himself between Campbell and the keeper, but Terry was going for the ball. No foul, valid goal.

AFAIR, one attacker stood in the way of the goalkeeper and wouldn't move away while the keeper was trying to stop the goal from being scored by another attacker. I suppose one could interpret that as a pure accident, but top-level referees aren't usually the most gullible people around. --Shallot

Just saw the .avi file from that web site wewererobbed.co.uk (useful :) and I'm pretty sure that the ref saw the first attacker's left hand over the goalkeeper as a foul. Interestingly enough, the second attacker had his hand over the first attacker, too, but I'm still not really surprised that a foul was called. --Shallot

Next to the disallowed goal the worst of his decisions was this - [3] where a free kick was awarded to Portugal. Shocking!!!

I saw that video now and I can't honestly see what's so shocking about it. It wasn't a real foul, the defender jumped much higher than the attacker who ended up being in the way and the defender tripped over him. The main referee was far away, and called it despite the fact the linesman didn't wave. It's not much of an error, and the ball wasn't played towards the goal so it didn't even affect anything important. --Shallot 20:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're weird. You say the defender jumped higher than the attacker. But Vassell's feet don't leave the ground. He didn't jump at all. A free kick was awarded to Portugal. What was Vasell's infringement? Was it obstructing someone falling on his head? Did Vassell somehow magically lift the Portuguese defender above him? The Portuguese defender climbed on top Vassell and the Portugese player was awarded a free kick for it. I was a bizarre decision.

Actually, no, the defender did not climb on the attacker, he jumped for the ball on his own accord (without e.g. using the attacker's shoulders to prop himself up, a known tactic) and seemed to have been closer to the ball. It was bizarre to stop play because of a largely inconsequential accident (the ball was already back in the midfield when he whistled), but not an error that hurt either team's chances of scoring. --Shallot

But why was Vassell penalised? For standing under someone falling on his head? That is the point you don't seem to get. Mintguy (T) 22:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't see how it could be construed that he fould him, either. It was an error. I'm just opposed to using this to establish some sort of a pattern of grave mistakes that would allow for pontification over how the job was badly done to ensue. If the UEFA judging panel scores Meier badly for the game, sure, but this kind of preemptive nitpicking-based badmouthing isn't fit for this encyclopedia. --Shallot 22:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought we were having a conversation. I haven't edited the article at all. Mintguy (T)

Sure, but someone else put the weaselly termed stuff already, which was what caused my initial comment. --Shallot 22:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What's weasley about it? It's just stating a fact. A fact that is the cause of his notoriety. There's a lot more that could be said that isn't. That he disallowed the goal is without doubt. That it was a controversial decision is also without doubt. That if he had allowed the goal England would have won the match is almost certain (it was in the 89th minute, there was a vague possibility of a France like comeback though). That this is probably the most important footballing decision he ever made is a a fair comment. His name would be virtually unknown but for this decision. A number of websites exist solely because of this decision. Here is a good one [4] (warning this is more of that humour thing that you see to have trouble with). Mintguy (T) 07:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, not sure if I actually watch more football than you do, but Urs Meier is a referee known to me from numerous UEFA games, similarly to Pierluigi Collina, Markus Merk, Gilles Veissiere, Kim Milton Nielsen, Anders Frisk, ... These people simply could not have been able to come to this kind of tournament had they actually been "virtually unknown". If you had said the same about that Portuguese referee that appeared in a few games, that would be just a bit fishy, but Urs Meier? You must have no idea that this has been one of the top ten referees in the world... --Shallot 16:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Similarly when the Portugese defender stepped on Rooney's foot (breaking his toe) the ref awarded a free kick to the Portuguese. These were two examples of peculiar decisions, but there were plenty more. But that's football. Mintguy (T)

That does sound really suspicious. --Shallot

Saw the .avi now. The attacker changed his path that caused him to bump into the defender, the defender then stepped on the attacker's shoe, and then pushed him away. Had the attacker fallen down at that point, that would have surely been called a foul. Because it seems to have been within the penalty box, it would have been a penalty kick. Poor Wayne Rooney, all he got out of the incident was an injury. --Shallot

Well you see , (this is undoubtedly a gross exagerration but I'll say it anyway) English players do not roll around on the ground looking like they've had their leg chopped off with an axe when the get tackled, unlike a number of our European cousins. Mintguy (T) 07:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It just sounds like you're spiteful at those attackers who are more experienced and know when it's time to fall. There are some that take a dive whenever they can - I've developed a dislike for Pippo Inzaghi and partly for Van Nistelrooij and Šokota because I've seen them simulate too many times. But some amount of contact is always tolerated in the 16m box because it would be detrimental to the game if even the lightest pushing was penalized. When an attacker perseveres in his run despite the fact he was handled roughly, he forces the referee to make a decision harder than the one they would have to make had the attacker simply given up his run and made the problem obvious. That's today's football, deal with it... --Shallot

I think the "We was robbed" link at the bottom should be removed. It has absoloutly no educational use, and just highlights a group of English fans desperate for an excuse for the loss. That UEFA backed his decision shows he was right, so controversial or not, attacking him in this article because of that decision seems ridiculous. Grunners 20:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can I just point out that UEFA backing does not necessarily mean he was right. It just mean that UEFA is doing its job of backing its referees like it's suppose to. The governing bodies have a duty to back its referees as the referee's decision is final in any given match. Whether it view afterwards the decision was correct or not does not go into it. (Note: I'm a referee) -- KTC 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark-Romania

and disregarded the extra time announced by the assistant, making it five minutes instead of two - That just complete rubbish language wise. Under the laws of the game, it is the referee that decide on how long time added on to play. It is also the referee who signal to the fourth official how long to indicate to the crowd. So he's not disregarding the time the fourth official decided, cause it's his decision from the start. Now, whether there was any value reason(s) for him to add on extra time to which he orginally signaled to the fourth official is a different question. I've changed the language to be slightly less misleading. -- KTC 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] England vs Portugal

The article seems to make pretty sweeping statements about the correctness of Meier's decision to disallow Campbell's 'goal' in this game. Clealry I'm a biased England fan, but I watched the replay again and Terry seems to be making a genuine attempt to go for the ball and Ricardo just falls over. Is it really just us English that think it wasn't that clear cut a decision? Hammer Raccoon 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no one replied (and thus no one objected) I removed the POV regarding Meier's decision. Opinions in football are very subjective, and any interpretation of the 'correctness' of the decision would clearly be suspect to bias. Hammer Raccoon 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you are right in saying that some of the article was subjective. It was also good that you left the part about how it was correct of Meier to remind the English that the game was part of an international tournament. Now the part which is slightly questionable is that you removed the sentence stating that Terry held Ricardo down. I think he did.(like you i am biased :) ) If it was an accident or Ricardo let himself fall we don't know. I agree to all your changes except the rv'ing of those two sentences. I would recommend formulating it like this:

Television replays showed that Terry may have held Ricardo down but football fans generally agree that television replays were inconclusive. wwicki 16:39 UTC

Read Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words to see why this is a bad idea. Although I think the statement "television replays were inconclusive" is neutral as it is, a good solution would be to find a source stating this inconclusiveness (clearly not originating from England, Portugal or Switzerland). Hammer Raccoon 21:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)