Talk:Lucas Neill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Skilful?[edit]

With Barcelona now after him it looks like he is now to skillful for BRFC.

Are we not misleading Wikipedia's many users by calling this man 'skilful'. Having followed BRFC for many years now, I don't agree with the current description.

I've edited it out entirely, rather than the article saying the exact opposite of what was being said before. I think that's the easiest thing to do to uphold NPOV. Bobo. 04:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can u say that! he is so skilful! i've met him before and attended some training sessions and trained with him and he is bloody awsome! i follow BRFC to mate and omg he is a champion! i love him so much and I hope that he can kick some goals in Germany to prove u wrong!

International and England Career[edit]

I think some of the information listed under International Career needs to be shifted to England Career. Although, both articles will then need other adjustments so they make sense. Samatic 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Name[edit]

Does anyone know the correct spelling of his surname? The article lists it as 'Lucas Neill', with a double 'l'. I've always thought it was Lucas Neil, with a single 'l'. Can anyone clear this up for me? Raph89 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct but SMH and FFA sites both call him "Neill". I have definitely seem it spelled with one 'l' though... Downunda 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The double 'L' is correct. 121.44.140.88 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Ham move[edit]

as it remains news, citation please? Chensiyuan 13:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1], hasn't been completed yet, just agreed, best bet is that he'll join on Monday, don't know where this "end of season" stuff is coming from. Gran2 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 World Cup penalty hubbub[edit]

Just did an NPOV description of the 'penalty' incident between Neill & Grosso @ FIFA 2006. Most controversial will be the statement that Neill 'did not remain motionless.' Readers are invited to watch various YouTube videos to check the description against the images. Tapered (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored my NPOV edit, removing POV language. Please note the included facts. 1) The referee was in excellent position to view the action. 2) He was selected as head official in quarter-final game and an assistant in the final--meaning that the FIFA technical committee reviewed the tapes and saw no major gaffes. The highest rated referee in the world @ the time was excluded from the knockout rounds for a major mistake in US vs Ghana in the 1st round. If Socceroo fans want some sort of expert mediation, then let's call for it. Otherwise, next POV, partisan edit I'm going to the Editors on more than one front. It's been 2 1/2 years since this game, and Wikipedia is NOT a partisan forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The line "(Cantalejo refereed the quarter-final match between France and Brazil.)" is full of all kinds of implications without actually being useful in my opinion. It may be the case that it was reviewed and deemed correct, but without reliable sources saying that, isn't it veering close to original research? For what it is worth, I believe the penalty was the correct decision, but I don't agree with the usefulness of the line quoted without sourcing. Camw (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very confrontational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.113.66 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're describing my behavior, not engaging in criticism of the ideas put forward. That's covert behavior, at attempt to shift the ground by making style an issue. Other than answering your attempted shift by labeling your behavior, I haven't attached any personal labels to color the debate emotionally. My own description calls it a strong protest. And gives a reason. Partisan gamesmanship on this subject has a strong venue @ YouTube, but doesn't belong here. I've addressed the technical and official aspects of the issue with technical language and reports of official action. If anyone wants to challenge in the same manor, that's the reason for this forum.

Also, my non-signage was a mistake arising from a misbehaving computer. Tapered (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Australian partisans insist there was no foul by Neill. This time I've included a link to a video of the play. If anyone thinks Neill was motionless, there is one profession from which they ought to be prevented by law from entering--coroner. If they think Neill was motionless, they aren't fit to perorm an autopsy. NOTE--@Camw: I'm going to re-edit my most recent edit to remove my own POV conclusion, but I want the reference to Cantalejo officiating the quarter final to remain, if for no other reason than it's FACTUAL. If it has implications, as pointed out by myself, well then maybe there's something to the implications. But to remove a FACT because it's incovenient or has implications is wrong. Tapered (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference to Catalejo and the quarter final should not stay if it has no direct, sourced relevance to the subject Lucas Neill. Saying he officiated the quarter final is factual, but only in any way relevant to the article if the implications are linked to a reliable source saying so. Camw (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you've added it back without replying, can you tell me - without the implications (as they remain unsourced and original research), what is the link to Lucas Neill that the referee in this game refereed a subsequent match? At the moment, the wording is very similar to the line we discussed above months ago and where you left a note on my talk page describing the information as "not essential for the article". If it is now essential, please tell me why. Camw (talk)

@ 202.161.90.95, et al. One more time, POV partisan language substituted for direct reportage, even after I cleaned up the incident description to remove anything remotely resembling partisan language. Since I've never filed a blocking or arbitration request with the editors before, I'm not going to do it the night before a holiday when busy. Will be filed nonetheless.

Tapered (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair edit by Mosmof. Re-included the selection of Cantalejo to officiate quarter-finals to balance Hiddink's evaluation. Readers can judge for themselves, and watch video if they like.

Tapered (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I share Camw's reservation about the edit about Cantalejo officiating the quarterfinal match. All top referees officiate multiple matches in the knockout stages, so it's not particularly noteworthy on its own. Unless there was a reason he shouldn't have called the QF match, it has nothing to do with Lucas Neill or the foul on Grosso. Hiddink and others on the Australia team complained about the penalty call, but there was never any call to sanction Cantalejo. I move to take it out. --Mosmof (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If we are including the line to "balance" the Hiddink comment, then there has to be a reliable source cited indicating that the subsequent appointment was because the decision was reviewed and correct otherwise it is speculation which doesn't belong in the article and isn't balanced at all. It would be better to balance the comment with a comment supporting the decision from someone else, maybe of similar standing to Hiddink - the Italian coach or representative, FIFA official or someone along those lines. Camw (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiddink's remarks POV unless balanced. Ergo, removed. Perhaps, in good faith, we could link readers to the FIFA official video, to view the incident for themselves. Otherwise, I hope the present language stays. It's tidy and NPOV. Tapered (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hope doesn't necessarily make right. We're not going to argue whether it was correct or not, but considering how controversial the decision was at the time, and I don't think anyone disputes that the Australian team universally disagreed with the decision, and I recall much of the public opinion siding with the Australians. I've restored Hiddink's comment, a neutral opinion, the opposing viewpoint, and Neill's own reaction. --Mosmof (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time before an RfC request, I've restored the info on Cantalejo in the quarter-final. If the coaches' evaluations are to be included in the article, then the assignment to officiate the next round of matches is relevant. The journalist's evaluation is certainly verified and relevant, but hardly neutral. Officials are definitely evaluated on performance. Re FIFA 2006, check the articles on Markus Merk and Valentin Valentinovich Ivanov. Both men would be less than amused by the assertion, methinks. Tapered (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? I looked at the Markus Merk article and the FIFA section is terribly written. I hope we're not trying to emulate that. Plus, this is an article about the player, not the referee. Unless Australia formally appealed FIFA, mentioning that Cantalejo officiated the next round as it if it is meaningful smacks of WP:SYNTH. Mosmof (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the player, but we're addressing the Round of 16 officiating controversy. Since a variety of opinions were expressed concerning Cantalejo's officiating, the fact that he was selected to officiate the next round is relevant. The Merk article used to be much better. The Ivanov article is still OK. Tapered (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing - there's a difference between questioning a decision and questioning the competency of a referee. You're not necessarily a poor referee if you make a bad decision, especially in this case, where the controversy was over whether Grosso simulated. Falling for trickery isn't necessarily a technical error or indication of poor officiating style, the kind of stuff referees are actually punished for. Referees don't get punished for making controversial decisions, which is what we're talking about here. Mosmof (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated the RfC to get input from from the wider Wikipedia sports community. A referee is evaluated exactly by his ability to make quick judgements under pressure, among other qualities. Please leave the Cantalejo reference in the article for the time being to see if we can attract commentary. If not, as I said @ your talk page, I'll seek Administrative intervention. 05:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolton[edit]

Why on earth does it say at the side of the page he plays for bolton wanderers??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.209.227 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.77.221 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does the selection of Cantalejo to officiate in the Quarter Finals warrant inclusion in the article[edit]

Does the selection of the referee, Cantalejo, to officiate in the Quarter Finals of FIFA 2006 warrant inclusion in the article, given the full description of the controversy surrounding his officiating in the Round of 16 which is included in the article? Tapered (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cantalejo was selected..." sentence seems out of place. I know the point of the sentence is to show a piece of data about the controversial call: the referee was selected for the quarterfinals and therefore his competence has some measure of official support. But that connection and how relevant it is should be explained by a reliable source if it is going to be included here. Did a FIFA official issue a statement supporting the referee's call? Do reliable neutral authorities point out that Catalejo was included in the quarterfinals, and therefore couldn't have done much wrong earlier in the tournament? MarkNau (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has added anything, so here's a response. The entire paragraph addresses Cantalejo's officiating. So the fact that he was selected for the next round is part of the picture. It IS an irrefutable fact, whereas the commentary from both sides is clearly self-interested. If that sort of opinion is to be included, there can't be any reason to EXCLUDE an irrefutable fact. FIFA doesn't discuss referee selection publicly. I invite you to inquire for information. I did. I also suggest that this matter be referred for some sort of a ruling from editors. Tapered (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try another RFC as this one expired, but nobody out of the other three editors you've discussed this with has supported your view so far. If FIFA doesn't comment on it, we shouldn't either as we are drawing conclusions that aren't supported by any reliable sources. Camw (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this I am going to remove the information again as it was readded for the purposes of discussing the now expired RfC and there was no support to keep it. BLP Policy states "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source". This statement is a conjectural interpretation of the decision to appoint the referee for subsequent rounds and has been objected to in good faith by two other editors on this page. It is up to you to show consensus for inclusion, which hasn't happened so far. Re-adding the information without consensus to do so would be against the stated policy. Camw (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove info about Cantalejo unless it can be proven false. Or please remove the entire bloody controversy business. Tapered (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to show consensus for inclusion, and there has been nothing close to such consensus on this talk page. Camw (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all references to controversy. Suggest we include something like, "This play has remained controversial," with all footnotes available and possibly some links @ the end of the article for further reading. I insist that the controversy is about Cantalejo, and that he be included in any detailed recounting. Tapered (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with how it is now and I'm looking forward to moving on to more productive work. If it is as you insist, about the referee, then the incident should be detailed in his article rather than this one. Camw (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club[edit]

Isn't he clubless now?--LidZeppelen (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retired[edit]

Mark Viduka never officially announced his retirement. He just faded out into the distance. How long before we can list Neill as retired???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.167 (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the lines of this would do for Neill. --Egghead06 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucas Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lucas Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lucas Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucas_Neill&oldid=1207144958"