Talk:The Play

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject American football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
football The Play is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Great play

Great play,and that trombone player got clobbered! Well, he got what was coming to him! Go Cal!

[edit] POV?

PKtm, saying that the referees had the option of awarding Cal the touchdown due to the band's interference is not a point of view statement. GeorgeC 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is. It's speculation and a subtle bolstering of the one POV (Cal, in other words). It's not "fact" and it doesn't add to the article. -- PKtm 20:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the referee of the game, Charles Moffett, himself has stated that, per NCAA rules, the option to award Cal the touchdown had Moen not crossed the goal line was open to them. (Link to Moffett's quote). Scroll down to near the end of the article. Thus, it is not a POV statement. GeorgeC 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See also: original source of the quote. (I agree with GeorgeC.) ArcTheLad 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with GeorgeC; the statement is not POV and not speculation, but a well-sourced clarification of the rules. It is useful information to anyone who reads the article looking for in-depth information. I'll admit that it supports the POV statement "Cal deserves to have won". However, that doesn't make it POV itself; if anything, this consideration explains why it belongs in the "controversy" section, where it already is. Melchoir 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Melchoir. GeorgeC 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry too, but come on, adding 186 words of the quote itself actually makes it more of a POV thing. What's next? Someone else adds in statements from Stanford partisans about how poor the officiating was? NPOV is not about just making sure that all the facts for your side are in the article as many times as you can, and it's not about adding more words to explain. The quote is available elsewhere; it makes perfect sense to provide a link to it, but it doesn't need to consume this part of the article.

The point is that what might have happened is pretty irrelevant. Let's stick to what did happen. And thanks for the vote, Melchoir, always great to hear, but sorry too, you actually confirmed my point. The whole purpose of the mention of the ref's quote is to support the very POV statement "Cal deserves to have won." Let's get things out of the article that support either side in that way. -- PKtm 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

PKtm, I agree that the ref's quote is excessive; for that matter, Joe Starkey's call is also way too long, especially since it's material that we already link to. Ironically, I'd guess that GeorgeC wouldn't have thought it necessary to paste in the quote if you hadn't tried to delete the material it supports as "speculation". I think both quotes should be moved to the talk page and replaced with footnotes. Melchoir 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Melchoir, I disagree that Moffett's quote is excessive, nor do I agree that Starkey's call is too long.

As for the controversy, I endeavored to present all sides. It was a controversial call, of course, and there were hard feelings on the Stanford side, as you could probably imagine. In my opinion, all of this is relevant to the issue. GeorgeC 03:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Come on: what comes across is anything but a fair representation of all sides, frankly. It totally reads like a Cal partisan wrote it. (And this, coming from me, a Cal grad). The Stanford arguments are each put up there with one sentence, and then each one is knocked down, with all sorts of cited sources, and now with even dozens of sentences to hammer home the point. What an embarrassment, I feel, for true Cal partisans, who should be bending over backwards to preserve NPOV and let the reader decide. Instead, you've got to hit that reader over the head, push him towards one and only one conclusion, with more more more. Think of how you'd react if it were the opposite.

Let's move the ref's quotes to a footnote, as Melchoir suggests, and rewrite or eliminating the sentence(s) about the ref's likelihood of ruling a touchdown no matter what (since "could have" really doesn't count for much). Equally, the extended Elway quote is out of place and should be removed or condensed. The Starkey call transcript, while totally POV of course, is historical and fascinating and should, in my mind, be preserved as such. Otherwise, though, this stuff is all out there on Wikiquote. -- PKtm 04:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Partisanship? I don't think so, PKtm. Did I not post Starkey's praise of Stanford? Did I not illustrate just how well John Elway played in the fourth quarter of the game that allowed them to kick the go-ahead field goal? John Elway's quotes were posted to put across the depths of his negative feelings about the officiating to the reader. It's countered by Charles Moffett's assertion that their call was completely within the rules.
I have made no conclusion. The officials have already done that. Hence, I am neutral.
If you like, PKtm, post a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" notice and let the readers decide. I believe I posted an article that's both neutral and tells the story from all sides. GeorgeC 06:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not how Wikipedia works, GeorgeC, except as a complete last resort. I'll edit the article, boldly, as is the Wikipedia approach and recommendation, and doggedly pursuing NPOV. You really can't insist that everything in the article as it stands is perfect, and just turn to reverting other ways of going about describing the events.
But I am sorry you can't see how biased the description of the controversy is, and how some of the extended quotes detract from making the article encylopedia-style in nature. Again, I'd ask that you step back and imagine that this was all done the other way around from the side that you (evidently) favor, and how skewed you'd consider that. -- PKtm 06:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't favor any side. I stated the circumstances of the event, then, where appropriate, I presented the views of all sides — not mine. Therefore, the article is not skewed.

Do what you will, PKtm. I stand by my work. Why not do as I suggested? GeorgeC 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, PKtm, but what about Charles Moffett's comments? They are very relevant to the event. I'm creating a section dedicated to them. GeorgeC 09:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, edit conflict over here... Without having seen the last three four comments (sorry), I've made some changes to the article. I moved Joe Starkey's call to the bottom of the article, not because I have anything against it, but simply because I don't like long quotes to break up exposition and analysis. Elway's and the ref's quotes I abstracted and moved to Wikiquote, with links. I cleaned up some of the more provocative language, and I removed the quotes from "The Play" wherever I found them; why undermine the title of the article? Melchoir 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Provocative language"? GeorgeC 09:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, sue me for drama! Honestly, I just didn't want to say POV. I hope you didn't find a problem with my actual edits, though. Melchoir 09:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You did a good job. I'm not wanting to get into a pissing contest here. Peace, friend. GeorgeC 09:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologize for the confusion, GeorgeC, but do you really think the new section is necessary given my version of Controversy? Melchoir 09:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely! The appropriateness of the officials' ruling is the crux of the whole event, is it not? It's certainly not a secondary part of the event. GeorgeC 09:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Not my view. That's the point of being able to link to larger bits of text; those that are interested can pull it up. I think Melchoir did a good job with his edits, but I still think belaboring the ref's statements is really a subtle way of saying "Cal deserved to win." I'll be making more edits in a bit. PKtm 16:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
"Belaboring"? Is it belaboring to present facts germane to the event? That's like telling the story about the Titanic and leaving out the iceberg. GeorgeC 19:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, my work here is done. I can't get worked up over the quote where it is, so you two can do what you will. Cheers! Melchoir 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to chase you off. You're a good writer. GeorgeC 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Aww, shucks. Anyway, I wouldn't exactly say you chased me off; the article looks fine now, and I have other dead horses to beat. Later, Melchoir 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to start a new POV discussion, but I've changed the line reading "The primary objection is that Dwight Garner's knee was down before he lateraled to Richard Rodgers." As i read this, it is presented as a fact that his knee was down. However, this is the POV (in this case Stanford's). Imho, it is therefore more correct to write "Primarily it was claimed that Dwight Garner's knee was down before he lateraled to Richard Rodgers." -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.186.191 (talk • contribs) March 7, 2006.

Sounds good to me. I'm all in favor of removing POV whereever it rears its head... -- PKtm 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"some believe ...."- some believe people shouldn't write wishy washy statements without references in an "encyclopedia"


[edit] Use of plurals?

Just a question about the use of plurals in this article: because some of the laterals should have been ruled as illegal forward passes. Another dispute is whether Cal ball carriers were tackled before they threw those passes. It is my understanding that the Stanford players only argued one instance of a tackle before a pass. Moreover, i think only one of the lateral passes was argued as being a possible illegal forward pass. See [1]RoguePat 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma-Texas??

In the absence of any evidence of "The Play" referring to anything other than the subject of this article in national media, I am reverting 129.15.76.123's changes. Melchoir 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I think that the word that was censored in the paragraph should be not censored. I just need to know the word. Baseracer 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however the source we have is censored. But please, do remove the (word removed) part! :) --Falcorian (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration?

Calling other similar plays as "inspired" by The Play sounds a bit off to me. The Play is not something anyone can hope to purposefully duplicate. "Similar Plays" or something like that would be more appropriate? 131.107.0.73 19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiddling with yard lines

Okay, I know you have an axe to grind, 67.112.196.4, but we can't just play with the numbers without sources. Where are they? Melchoir 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our job to assign our own yard numbers to the events in question. If you can't find a source for the numbers, they have to be removed. And as long as the article lacks a References section citing reliable sources, it's original research. Melchoir 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why Citations are listed "as needed". The Play is listed as called by Joe Starky. Blacklist 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe Starkey does not provide yard lines, so we can't very well cite him for yard lines, can we? I've listened to the call and read the transcript, and I guarantee you that the Cal radio announcer did not claim that a lateral was passed at the Stanford 27 and caught at the Stanford 26! This isn't an ordinary WP:NOR academic issue; the yard lines are being used in the article to argue whether or not The Play was legal, so it matters to WP:NPOV as well.
As for the video, anyone who's watched a football game knows that there is no reliable, objective way to extract yard lines from video evidence. The video we have is terrible; but even when you have six high-definition, slow-motion camera angles zoomed in on the action, the fans often disagree with the announcers, and the announcers express surprise at where the refs spot the ball. When a play goes under review, the final ruling is often unexpected and controversial, and often the refs admit that there is no conclusive evidence either way. When exactly a player gains or loses possession of the ball, when exactly a player goes down, where the ball is when these things happen, how that relates to the position of his feet, whether a ball in midair is moving forwards or backwards — sometimes you just don't have the angles.
We certainly could try to pin down the yard lines on this talk page, but fabricating the truth by consensus is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Given the time since I put up the {{citeneeded}} and {{OR}} tags but no new sources emerged, I'm going to assume that there is no source for the numbers and eliminate them. Melchoir 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...there. Melchoir 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many men

Just a little thing. The article saying that Cal "presumably" declined should just say they declined, because accepting would have led to the kickoff being replayed with something like a 10 yard penalty, so the penalty was obviously declined--Puckeater8 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Play_1d70.html"