Talk:Horacio Elizondo

controversy part is too long
It might be a good idea to include this referee's mistakes in his article but considering there are tons of mistakes that almost every referee makes, then all of them may have seperate sections for their own controveries parts in their articles. What I'm trying to say is controversy part should be reduced a lot and merged with the other parts of this article. Also, in this article "...some consider controversial occurred when Kim Nam-il had control of the ball, but the referee suddenly came up and took the ball away from him for unknown reason...." is not officially proven to be true at all and only totally based on koreans' opinion and consipiracy. I watched the match and there are some times when a referee accidentally bumps into the ball or even field players in soccer games. Right now, it just seems that korean's emotinal, angry complaint and whining has affected this article way too much that it's lost its neutrality.

Wikipedia is not a place to represent opinions of only one side.davidmj926 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.37.49.231 (talk • contribs)


 * So I've made some changes in this article in a way to remove some one-sided claims but left the basic stuff. Its neutrality is as important as providing info because it's an international website viewed by a lot of people from different countries.

I made it into a separate section because I thought the controversies were just too long to be included in the 2006 Fifa World Cup. mirageinred 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And what happened to the offside part? I tried to keep it NPOV by saying that Elizondo did have the right to overrule the assistant referee, but that's gone. mirageinred 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I hate to post three times in a row, but should the controversies be kept in chronological order? mirageinred 06:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy section is far too long. We can't comment on every single referee's controversial decision of that match. All in all, the off-side interpretation might stay, but all other must be resumed as critics to other ruling including one doubtful penalty not given to Korea.

Korea’s coach agreed that the referee was right to allow the second goal to stand. http://worldcup.reuters.com/france/news/usnL24568011.html Nzfooty 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also found out that the handlings in the penalty area part is also too long as well. When we watch soccer games, it happens quite often when the referee may misjudge handling fouls in that area since it's a extremely sensitive matter and the penalty kicks can affect the match directly. It's not necessary to state all the details about events that may occur frequently and are not only special cases of one match at all. We should reduce this part.David M. Jeong 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've edited some parts of that paragraph. I think that would be enough to describe what basically happened in the match in a neutral way. David M. Jeong 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've erased the part stating handling fouls by Swiss players since the referee adjudged them as accidental and involuntary. We can see that referees do not award penalty kick every single time when handling occurs in football games as I mentioned above and therefore, it's not a distinctive or hugely controversial feature of only one particular match. David M. Jeong 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection
This obviously might need semi-protecting now. Englishrose 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I thought everything would be over after Korea vs. Switzerland. mirageinred 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree Has been recieving vandalism post England V. Portugal.The One00 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree for obvious reasons. vandalism is occuring at this page too frequently. Elizondo and Portugal's "cheating hero" Cristiano Ronaldo obviously did not proceed to go out on a romantic date following the match. mirageinred 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it can't be helped, one contraversial match is bound to get a lot of heated vandalism but two contraversial matches is bound to get even more. It has become an obvious target for vands and agree football fans. I've requested semi-protection. Englishrose 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work. mirageinred 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree - this is getting silly, and I'm really not sure we need Falklands War references in here. Mrph 19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Falklands

 * As for the Falklands War reference, I'm pretty sure that it has attracted media attention with him being from Argentina, it will certainly with the British press. The way it's written is "FIFA's decision to appoint Elizondo has also being questioned due to the fact of him being Argentine as England and Argentina fought each other in the Falklands War.", shows that some have questioned his decision, if it was written like erm "Elizondo cheated in order to gain revenge for the Falklands", then it would be wrong as it would be implying POV. See my comment below. Englishrose 19:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I very much doubt that it has anything to do with the Falklands War but this is how it will be percieved through the British press etc. Englishrose 19:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked through Google, FIFA etc, and can find no other reference, at the moment, to a link with the Falkland Islands. Forgive me for being a newbie, but if a person put this on as rumor, is it not in violation of No Original Content? --The One00 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a current even so sources at the moment will be thin off the ground. It will take a few weeks for stuff like that to appear on google. The best thing to do is either leave it and wait or remove it and wait then readd it if it pops up. It's defintley been a talking point in England for sure so I've got a feeling it has been reported or most likely will be reported. The best thing to do is glance the newspapers tomorrow. Englishrose 19:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need to mention the Falklands in this article, especially not since there is general agreement (outside England) that the referee made a very good game and was not in any way biased against the English. England has been at war with most countries (France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Ireland, Austria to name but a few). This is not really about the referee, it's about some fans trying to find a scapegoat. That has no place in an encyclopedia.


 * ...but it's just been added in again, now that the article is unprotected. Do we want to remove it? Mrph 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

England vs. Portugal section
This section seems to be COMPLETELY free of anything resembling NPOV. I don't know if we can count the BBC as a source for saying that the English team was on the short end of the officiating, and certainly saying there was a "fist clench" as if Elizondo were celebrating is completely unnecessary. I'd edit it myself but I lack the knowledge concerning this specific game to do it. -Bkessler23 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For now, this article would just have to endure angry football fans. I'm sure it will cool off later. mirageinred 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the first clench, it was an annyomous user who made that point. I'd like a reliable source to back that point up. The BBC is a very reliable source as it is worldwide, it may be British but it makes it verifiable. The way I see NPOV in this case is that there's no real answer, there's no correct POV, he made a contraversial decision, thus both sides should be shown to explain why it is contraversial. Englishrose 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Citations are a must in a controversial article like this. mirageinred 19:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments on Rooney's red card are misleading - it is not yet clear what the card was for, but it appears at this point that it was not for the stamp, but for the push on Ronaldo in the follow up. If you watch the video footage, the referee awards the free and does not react any further until the push, at which point he takes Rooney aside. Also there needs to be some reference for the comment regarding his appointment being questioned as he is Argentinian. In addition, the listing of the yellow cards he awarded against English players without mentioning those awarded against Portugese players is biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isber (talk • contribs)

Um... I think we need to keep the "fist clenching" part. I believe that it shows both sides. mirageinred 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for keeping the fist clenching part, but it was added with no citation. If someone can verify that he did indeed make a fist clench, something that even resembles one, that's fine. -Bkessler23 23:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This page will need a major clean-up. Most commentators I've heard/read agree that Elizondo made one of the best games any referee has made in the tournament. Apart from the rampant vandalism from English fans, there is now talk about Elizondo being "controversial" and his "contoversial" decisions. Sorry, but a decision is not contoversial just because it goes against England. The whole section on the game England-Portugal should be rewritten to conform with NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isber (talk • contribs)


 * It doesn't matter which country Elizondo made decisions in favor to. Any favorable decisions can range from a mere yellow card to a penalty kick, but his decisions were not just favorable; they were significant and questionable at the same time making his decisions controversial needless to say. mirageinred 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Significant" and "questionable" are your opinion, and I've removed it from the article. If there are notable figures, i.e. experts and players, who explicitly said it so many words, then great, quote them. But otherwise, they doesn't belong here. Mention the incident, talk about specific commentaries about the incident, but you need to keep out your own opinions or weasel words like "many believe". Ytny 08:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If his decisions received attention from the media it is definitely noteworthy and deserves a place in this article. We definitely need to keep information about his decisions during England vs. Portugal match. mirageinred 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any major event in a game will be mentioned afterwards. A sending-off always results in comments, especially in such an important game. There is nothing unusual with Rooney's red card or with the penalty having to be retaken. Outside the UK this isn't even an issue, and most papers in the UK I've read today blame Ronney himself, not the referee; that would indicate agreement with the card.

Two points regarding England-Portugal 1. There is mo reason to keep the information about the penalty having to be retaken. The point of an article on a referee is not to list every single decision he has taken during the game. 2. It is true that few at first knew why Rooney was sent off, today is has become clear that it was for kicking Carvalho. The comment about the FIFA officials was interesting before the reason was known, but not any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isber (talk • contribs)


 * 1. Fair point on Carragher's taking the penalty before the whistle. I only left it in because his subsequent miss set Portugal up for the winning kick but I agree that it's not necessary - that was a call any official would have made.
 * 2. Where have you read that confusion about the red card has been cleared up? Everything I've read so far shows that FIFA still hasn't publicized the exact reason except to say that it was for violent conduct. Eriksson said he talked to Elizondo, and that's where the press is getting that the dismissal was for the kick - the article should reflect that the "clarification" came from a post-match conversation, not an official source. Ytny 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Good, we agree on this one.
 * 2. Ok, I might have been a bit trigger-happy. For now, we leave it in. Once the reason is explained, that part should be edited.
 * 3. Any speculation about Elizondo and the Falkland's war is highly speculative. Same goes for speculation about what Rooney really intended to do. I'll edit that part. I'm not saying that I disagree, but a encyclopedia should stay focused on facts.


 * 2- It might never be disclosed, FIFA do not have to say why.
 * 3- It's being said many England fans after the match, also mentioned on Fox Soccer (http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=F5024CB4-C425-448C-ADE6-C826405AA307&f=33/64&fg=copy). I think this could be get round by saying "Some England fans belived that blah the referee was influenced by the Falklands", etc. Englishrose 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Englishrose wrote: "It's being said many England fans after the match"
 * The video doesn't load for me, and regardless, you may be completely correct but "it's being said" and "by many fans" are weasel words that you want to avoid on Wikipedia. There are in fact many people who believe crack cocaine was introduced to urban neighborhoods by the US government, just as there are many people who deny the holocaust. But the belief of "many people" doesn't give validity to their claims. If notable people who aren't known for their anti-Argentina bias come out and say that Elizondo was influenced by the Falklands War or there was some anti-English bias displayhed by Elizondo in the past, then it might warrant a mention, but otherwise, the belief of "many people", especially after such a heartbreaking loss, doesn't belong in the article. Ytny 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The video doesn't load for me, and regardless, you may be completely correct but "it's being said" and "by many fans" are weasel words that you want to avoid on Wikipedia. There are in fact many people who believe crack cocaine was introduced to urban neighborhoods by the US government, just as there are many people who deny the holocaust. But the belief of "many people" doesn't give validity to their claims. If notable people who aren't known for their anti-Argentina bias come out and say that Elizondo was influenced by the Falklands War or there was some anti-English bias displayhed by Elizondo in the past, then it might warrant a mention, but otherwise, the belief of "many people", especially after such a heartbreaking loss, doesn't belong in the article. Ytny 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is being said by unhappy English fans on the street is completely irrelevant. It's possible to find some people who believe the earth is flat and I'm sure you could find some who think that Elizondo is from the moon if you search hard enough. This is just about some English fans trying to blame someone else for England's loss. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia.

Alan Hansen
Alan Hansen is one of the most recognised football pundits around, during match of the day when he analysed the sending off he noticed that the referee showed no signs that he was going to send Rooney off until the Portugese players surrounded him. I think this is relevant to the article as it shows that a very well known football pundit believes that the referee was pressurised into making the decision, thus should be included and show not be reversed by Isber. This is like ignoring a well known historians view on an article about Nazi Germany. Englishrose 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, this is not the place for speculation. No, what "some English fans" said is not a reliable source. No, the war over the Falklands is not an issue that is relevant. No, we don't need to insert speculations from every football commentator around. There are hundreds of commentators who believe Elizondo did the right thing, should this article include a quote from each and every one of them. No, and especially not commentators from Portugal or the UK since they are more likely to be biased. This is an article in an encyclopedia and it should focus on facts.Isber 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your article falls down at the point as Alan Hansen is NOT an England fan, he actually dislikes England as his is Scottish and thus a Scotland fan. Englishrose 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the fact that he's a very famous pundit makes his view worth noting. Also it is a fact in itself that the tv repleys referee made no inclination to book the player until the Portugal players surrounded him. Englishrose 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many famous pundits. Should each article on a referee include speculations from 10 pundits? 20? 30? 100? And on every major decision as well? The point is that outside the UK, Elizondo's conduct is widely applauded as one of the best in the tournament. The constant efforts to try to portray him as biased against the English is perhaps understandable from a human point of view (we all know how it feels when our team is sent out of a tournament) but that does not make it any more correct. Insert Alan Hansen's views on the Alan Hansen page. Isber 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alan Hansen's views are not relevant to the Alan Hansen page but they are to this. Would you ignore Orlando Figes views on the Lenin page? As for their being many famous pundits, he's probably the MOST famous or at least one of the most famous. Englishrose 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not ignore Figes's views on the Lenin page, no. I would ignore the views of Polish/Ukrainian member of the Czar's court, expressed a few days after the revolution. Look, I understand that you are upset, but the outcome of this game was not down to the referee. There is general agreement about the errors of Poll, and worldwide surprise at Ivanov and Medina. Elizondo is a different topic. We all know that there is a history of blaming the referee who is in charge of important games that England looses. During the past weekend, I've read ten times more articles about the English need of finding scapegoats than I've read about the referee. The guy responsible for sending England home is Ricardo, not Elizondo. Isber 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the comment about Alan Hansen would be more suitable on the Ronaldo page?Isber 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making it out that I'm an upset England fan, just because I am English does not mean that my opinion is valid. It is perhaps alarming that I have disagreed with some of the opinions, please read some of my comments above. You however seem to be the opposite of what you portray me to be and are ignoring all valid points that go against the referee. Yes, Rooney should have been sent off but that does not mean that there are different prespectives about his actions, such as him showing no inclination to book Rooney until the Portugese players surrounding him or the failure to realise that Rooney was being fouled when he made that stamp, thus he could have prevented it. I have been on wikipedia a lot longer than you, so I am aware of WP:V and according to that the "According to the famous football pundit Alan Hansen" should stand as long as it has the "according to..." part. Englishrose 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, your comments are just as valid regardless of your nationality and I have no doubts that you're a responsible contributor to Wikipedia. What I want to avoid is speculation. You have previously inserted comments about the Falklands and about speculations among English fans, so while I don't doubt your contributions, yes, it does seem as if you want to get back a bit at Elizondo or at least throw his neutrality into doubt. Saying that Elizondo would not have shown the red card if not pressured by Ronaldo is very speculative, and it does not become less speculative even if a famous pundit thinks so. Isber 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't actually me who inserted the Falklands comments, I merely rephrased them, they were first introduced here: . I merely reworded it: so you are mistaken. Elizondo showed no signs of getting out the red card until he was surrounded by the Portugese players is a fact that Hansen commented on, look at the replays. Per WP:V, that statement is correct as long as it says "According to Alan Hansen". Englishrose 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I watched the game, the replays during the game and I've seen replays afterwards. As you know if you're interested in football, and I assume you are, it is fairly common that referes first blow, indicate the free-kick (or penalty) and then produce the card. There is nothing to suggest that he would not have given Rooney the red card regardless of the Portuguese reaction. I have already stated that this is all speculative. Alan Hansen is speculating (or rather guessing), just as you and I do know. Why is it so important for you to have this speculation added to the page, what does it contribute to our understanding of Elizondo? Isber 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the analysis of an expert is generally Wiki-worthy, but I'm (sort of) in agreement with Isber here. First, Hansen wasn't on the field - he was going with more or less the same visuals the TV audience got. In the case of this particular incident, he's no more an expert than the rest of us. If he had spoken to the players and the referees afterwards, you could make the case for inclusion, but otherwise, it's just uninformed speculation.

Second, to add to Isber's comment above, it's pretty common for players to surround the referee after a controversial play. That doesn't mean the decision made by the referee is necessarily influenced by the player. What generally happens is that the referee shoos the players away, and then produces the card of issues the warning. In this case, Elizondo found himself surrounded and tried to disperse the players. But when Rooney pushed Ronaldo, the right thing to do was to get Rooney away from the Portuguese players, and he directed Rooney to another spot on the field before issuing the card.

Given that there wasn't anything out of the ordinary (well, other than Rooney's actions), I don't think the speculation of an announcer who doesn't have any more knowledge of the incident than the rest of us bears inclusion here. Ytny 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney (aka Here we go again)
So this page is still being used to try to clean Rooney. I don't think it's particularly relevant that Rooney doesn't agree with being sent off. It is extremely rare in football for a player to state after a red card that he really deserved to be sent off, so why is this mentioned? All in all, the Rooney incident is taking up too much space here. Rooney stamped Carvalho, intentionally or unintentionally, and was shown the red card. That's it. I don't see any need for a long story about it, particularly not when the intention is not to add to our information about Elizondo (this article is about him) but instead trying to whitewash Rooney. I'm leaving the Rooney part in for now as I don't want to see an edit war, but I suggest we remove it soon.Isber 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're going too far. Fact- It's a significant incident which Elinzondo was involved in. Fact- There's 2 POV to this, thus Rooney's sides should be mentioned as well. These are backed up with references and I can sort of see the removing an well known pundits view on his decision, I can see why removing other views as well but this is slightly taking it too far. It's not a white wash of Rooney, it's stating the facts. Also, wikipedia does not have space requirements. Englishrose 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a significant incident. It's one of many decisions made by a referee. Poll showing three yellow cards was significant, Rooney being sent off for stamping at an opponent isn't. I guess we should include Carvalho's view as well here, right? I know you have references and I know that you there are no space requirements, but what does this contribute to the article? Nothing at all. Rooney went mad, stamped at an opponent and got sent off. Any referee in the world would have shown the red card. I don't see how one of the least controversial decisions Elizondo could have had to make during his career should be so much discussed. We've had references to the Falklands, to Alan Hansen, to the opinion of unidentified fans, to the possible actions of Ronaldo and now to the FA. Why?? Isber 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What you just said that shows that you are completely biased in favour of the red card. I'm trying to see it even handed like those on the Wayne Rooney talk page, "Rooney went mad, stamped at an opponent and got sent off"- we don't know that for a fact. He COULD have done it intentionally but it is also just as likely that he naturally put his foot down. He did not look at Carvalho when he stepped on him, as discussed on the Wayne Rooney article this makes it more doubtful to whether he did it intentionally. Also, there is very little doubt that Rooney was fouled several times before the incident- it could have been a rection but then again they were tangling for the ball so close to his feet that it could have been natural. As I said before, I wasn't the first to mention the Falklands, I also said off the record I didn't beleive it- if you read my comments further up. Alan Hansen- famous football pundit. The media has portrayed Ronaldo of pressuring the referee, thus significant. Englishrose 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I do believe this is a significant incident as far as referees go. There have been tons of articles about it, it's made the front page in England, and it's been a significant topic of discussion on television sports shows.  This is probably within the top few most reported-upon calls in the 2006 World Cup.  It's also going to be a topic of discussion if this referee ever is involved in a future England or Rooney game.  Beyond that, I would like to say that I don't think we should have incredibly strict standards about including referee calls, so long as NPOV is maintained.  I think that when you wikipedia a ref, you generally want to know what the guy is like in terms of calls.  How frequently does he tend to pull out cards?  Has he given out straight reds in high profile games?  Has he ever booked someone for diving?  What are his controversial calls?  What teams and players does he have a history with?  As long as we have wikipedia articles on the referees, I see no reason why we can't make them great articles that contain as much history about them as people are willing to write.  Of course, strict, strict attention must be paid to NPOV, and I know, understand and appreciate just how difficult that may be, but I think we ought to try.  More history will make the referee pages better and more useful.  I really think we should let in as much NPOV history on calls as can be supported by verifiable sources. Vickser 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is sufficiently notorious to warrant inclusion. It's just that at present it's poorly drafted and one-sided. As mentioned elsewhere, the fact that a player disagrees with his sending off is a big 'so what?' (find one who ever agrees with it), and yet the only reported responses to the decision are from Rooney and the supportive British FA. Yet, according to the linked story that implies the English FA will stick up for Rooney, FIFA's disciplinary chiefs had "hoped for an apology" from the FA and are considering whether to ban Rooney for longer; hardly an indication of a refereeing blunder that's earned universal condemnation. At the least, Elizondo's media-reported statements justifying his decision, and a catch-all 'media commentators have been divided as to whether the red card decision was correct' (you could, without looking too hard, find 10 opinion pieces in reputable publications each for and against the view that it was a red card offence) should be added to provide some balance.203.3.176.10 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part about Rooney being gobsmacked. As stated above, it's one-sided and nothing noteworthy as it goes for every player being shown the red card. Regarding Englishrose's comment about me being biased against Rooney, beingen neither English,Portuguese nor Argentinian I have no national bias in this subject. I do understand that Englishrose, as an English football fan, sees it from an English perspective, but the article in itself should be NPOV. Isber 10:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Comment, both sides HAVE to be shown. You can't just say the referee was correct, full stop. It was a major decision and some people disagreed with it and this must be shown as well as the people who supported it to make it even handed.

Also you've tried to make me seem biased but if you read half my comments, you'll realsie that I've tried to be even handed. The reason I'm paying so much attention to get Rooney and the FAs side is because both sides are not shown. You're trying to do the opposite and remove the other side, I'm trying to maintain it. Englishrose 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not saying the article should state that it was "the right decision, full stop". It was a decision that the football world at large agreed with, including FIFA. So trying to paint the picture of a very controversial decision is even more wrong. That Rooney thought he shouldn't have been sent off is obvious, equally obvious is that some English papers will write so. And yes, your edits have at times made me think that you are biased. I don't have anything against information about Rooney disagreeing with the red card, but the article shouldn't give the impression that this was a very controversial call when it wasn't.Isber 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote
OK, let’s try and reach a consensus. Remove Rooney’s viewsand keep it. Englishrose 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep For the simple reason it WAS a major and contraversial decision. There are two sides of it, those who support it and those who disagree with it. We need Rooney's views as well as the FAs to show that it was met with some disagreement. Englishrose 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite When did a player ever agree with a red card. While some red cards in the tournament have been controversial, this one never was (except perhaps in England). It can be partly kept, but the text shouldn't give the impression of a very controversial decision. FIFA has expressed full support of the ref's call. Isber 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite The call was controversial, but not in the sense that there was universal debate over it, but mostly because of the Manchester United angle with Cristiano Ronaldo's maybe-or-maybe-not involvement. I don't think it's wrong to include Rooney's (and the FA's) reaction, because associations don't always back the players, but it should be in context. From what I've seen, the press has been aiming their anger at Ronaldo, not Elizondo, as they seem to accept that the red card was the right choice, and Sven Goran Eriksson explicitly said he agreed with the red card. Ytny 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to my earlier comment, I think Rooney's version of the event is worth including, but it would be more useful to quote his description of the event rather than "gobsmacked". Should probably include a quote from Elizondo, "For me, it was a clear red card, so I didn't react to the Portuguese players" and the quote from Eriksson, "He told me he hit the other player and where he was hit so I can't complain about that", since he's someone who was hurt by the call but still agrees with it.Ytny 04:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Added the Eriksson quote, as I think it's useful and relevant. We already have the "Elizondo later confirmed that it was the kick on Carvalho that led to the red card" statement, with a link to back it up, so do we also need the "clear red card" line? If so, would we want to add it, or use it as a replacement for the existing comment? Mrph 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at it, I agree that the "clear red card" isn't really necessary. Thanks for adding he Eriksson quote though.Ytny 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite - I'd agree that players don't agree with red cards, and that the focus of the controversy has mostly been on Ronaldo/Rooney, not Elizondo. Mrph 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep The English FA backing Rooney shows that there is some debate about the card beyond just Rooney. I believe ESPN showed tape of Lampard and Crouch saying they thought the red card was overly harsh after the game. But even if they weren't, Rooney's opinion of it also changes the depth of his history with the ref. That Rooney disputes the red card means something about how they might interact in future games. Players aren't always "gobsmacked" when they get cards, and they don't always release public statements saying so. (I believe I was reading an article earlier today about Lehmann's red card in the final of the champions cup in which he pretty much said it was fair but disappointing.) Whether Rooney thought it was a fair card or an over the top one changes how this ref and Rooney (and possibly his Manchester and England teammates) will see each other in future games, and thus knowing what Rooney said is important and worth keeping. Vickser 03:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove This debate is ridiculous - this was one of the more clear-cut cards in the tournament. Very few people outside of England consider it an issue. If people can show that there's a significant number of unbiased professional opinions pointing out bias in the ref, fine. But until then, let's stop adding non-encyclopedic finger-pointing from a notoriously emotional British public. --Zambaccian 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove When a referee calls a foul one shouldn't put the fouler's point of view in. Its always going to be the same. User:wwicki

Suggested Text
Would you all think the following would present an appropriate balance?

"Elizondo was the referee in the England vs. Portugal quarter-final, which Portugal won 3-1 after penalties. Elizondo gave yellow cards to Ricardo Carvalho, Petit, Owen Hargreaves and John Terry, as well as a straight red card to England's Wayne Rooney. Elizondo gave yellow cards to  Ricardo Carvalho and Petit of Portugal and to Owen Hargreaves and John Terry of England, as well as a straight red card to England's Wayne Rooney.

In the 62nd minute, Elizondo sent off Rooney after he appeared to stamp on Portugal's Ricardo Carvalho and then pushed Cristiano Ronaldo after the whistle had been blown. Elizondo later confirmed that it was the kick on Carvalho that led to the red card. Outside England, Elizondo and Rooney's red card has not been an issue, however Wayne Rooney has said he was “gobsmacked” by the decision and believes that the red card was unjustified, claiming that he had been trying to keep his balance and was not aware of Carvalho. The English Football Association has supported Rooney, but England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson accepted Elizondo's decision, saying "I went to the referee to speak and he was 100 percent sure it was a red card. He told me he hit the other player and where he was hit so I can't complain about that".

Although there has been much debate over the call in England, articles in Scandinavian and German papers after the game put the blame on Rooney, agreeing with the referee. FIFA has requested an explanation from Rooney regarding his conduct during the game; this is standard practice when the referee reports violent conduct. Rooney is in danger of missing the first matches of the qualification to Euro 2008."

I'm thinking this keeps the fact that it's almost universally agreed outside of England that the red card was justified, while still preserving that Rooney strongly disagrees with the ref, and that the card would probably color future interaction between the two. It also contains the important facts of the game straight away in the first paragraph. Please feel free to suggest changes to this draft. I really hope we can all work together to get this right. Vickser 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty happy with that text, in regards to "Scandinavian and German papers after the game put the blame on Rooney", Dutch papers have made out that the referee sent Rooney off due to being pressurised by the Portugese players. Although, they are still reeling over their match where the Portugese players tricked the referee into giving yellows and reds (that record breaking match), I still think it's relevant that some other countries disagree with the red card. I just thought I'd point that out. Englishrose 15:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Elizondo gave yellow cards to Ricardo Carvalho and Petit of Portugal and to Owen Hargreaves and John Terry of England"? Or some less clunky way of indicating the countries of the players. J•A•K 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I just put it in above. Vickser 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little wary of the 'but' with regard to Sven - it sounds a little bit as if he's not supporting Rooney. I don't know what his actual opinion is, but in public he's tried not to take sides... saying that Rooney has said it wasn't intentional while agreeing that Elizondo acted appropriately. Purely IMHO, of course. Mrph 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe "The English Football Association has supported Rooney, while England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson has deferred to Elizondo, saying . . ."? Vickser 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the version above. A minor detail but we can be more specific about how the FA will support Rooney, but I guess we'll have to wait until FIFA actually decides on how to discipline him.Ytny 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, then, I think that sounds like consensus. I'll switch the but-while thing, source it up and put it in.  I've expanded on the the first two clashes and am going to put more stats in for this game and the South Korea-Switzerland one.  With Elizondo in charge of the final, I think this page is going to get a lot of hits in the next few days. Vickser 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks for the work, Vickser. --Zambaccian 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sentence
After this sentence:
 * According to some commentators and media, Lee Ho's action was not a mere deflection but an intentional move, what would make the offside void, supporting Elizondo's decision.

...this one:

...doesn't make any sense. If there was no offside violation because the deflection was intentional, then it doesn't matter what the official rules say about accidental deflections. --89.176.54.194 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what some commentators claim so it's not a fact, so the sentence should stay 68.80.241.179 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup is over
Guys, the World Cup is over, and now it´s time to stop whining or complaining. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should have personal articles that present a balanced biography of individuals. It is not reasonable to devote several lines to one match officiated by this referee. Also, only his alleged mistake or controversial decisions are mentioned - never his correct decisions.

Referees are no different from other people, so they should receive the same treatment. If a referee is selected to officiate in a World Cup, it means he is one of the best among dozens of thousands worldwide. Thus, his article should reflect such status, and "controversial" decisions should not be emphasised. However, infamous errors (such as those accepted by the referee later - eg Graham Poll's three yellow cards to the same player), ought to be included.

To make an analogy, for instance, I don´t think the article on players such as Miroslav Klose should not mention how many of his shots missed the target in each match, or how many passes were not completed. Nevertheless, Zidane's headbutting is worth mentioning.

It is just a matter of balance. I hope an editor apply such standards to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.99.153 (talk • contribs)
 * I do agree that emphasis on controversy creates an unbalanced perception of the referees and refereeing in general.
 * That said, I don't think comparison to footballers stands. Players gain notoriety because of their accomplishments. Referees earn theirs through mistakes and controversy, and the emphasis on controversy and errors is exactly what makes them notable. Other than Pierluigi Collina, I can't name a single referee who's not known for controversial decisions.
 * We can't list all the games they've called that have gone without incident, and they're not notable. We can't talk about the non-controversial decisions because they make dozens of them every match and no one reports them. So the best we can do is point to the controversies.Ytny 05:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would resume the entire 2006 WC section just stating he refereed the first and last game of the tournament, and which other matches he supervised. Perhaps a short comment on the South Coreans feeling upset without further details. Mariano (t/c) 07:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is stupid to have a review of every single match by Elizondo. I propouse we remove the all, leaving a wikilink to 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies with a short comment on Elizondo's general performance in the WC. Mariano (t/c) 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the world cup will be what he is famous for, it's not a good idea to shorten the world cup section, especially given that a lot of attention was given to it to make it as balanced as possible. Also, without the world cup, the article will be down to the bear bones. Englishrose 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said to remove the 2006 WC section but the review of every single match. A paragraph on his performance shouold do it, with a comment on the controversial match and the corresponding link to the World Cup controversies article. If not, we have hte same information in two different articles; that shouldn't happen. Besides, the article already existed before the start of the world cup. Mariano (t/c) 10:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that there's any reason the world cup stuff needs to be cut out. Several people (myself included) put hard work into it and I think the statistics and match information is important and worth having.  The passages are encyclopedic, well referenced, and NPOV.  Having a lot of information about the referee and his tournament history makes the article fuller and more useful.  I don't think it's worth cutting out just because not every referee has received such good treatment.  If he refs in the WC in 2010, I hope his games get as well covered.  When people look up a ref, they want to know about his call history, his controversies, and where they've seen him ref before.
 * As far as information existing in two different places, that's okay and it happens. I think the extensive treatment of the South Korea game should be there, but there's no reason there can't be a good summary here.  Many articles have summaries of other articles included in them.  Truthiness is included and summarized in the Colbert Report article, and a link to the main Truthiness article is there.  That's the way it should be.
 * Moreover I'm very wary of the argument that we shouldn't let one section of an article (or one article) become overly good because it may overstate its importance. The answer to that is to improve the quality and information available elsewhere, not to cut out where they excel. We should not let the best be the enemy of the good. Vickser 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vickser. Nothing more to say. Englishrose 08:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this?
 * Elizondo was appointed to represent Argentina in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, together with country fellow assistants Darío García and Rodolfo Otero. He officiated three group games, the opening match, Germany vs. Costa Rica, Czech Republic vs. Ghana, and Switzerland vs. South Korea. In the knockout stage, he officiated the England vs. Portugal quarter-finals match and the final, Italy vs. France, becoming the first referee in World Cup history to referee both the opening match and the final of a World Cup. Elizondo gave a red card to England's Wayne Rooney in the quarter-final and France's Zinedine Zidane in the final. Elizondo handed out a total of 29 cards in the tournament, three of which were red, for an average of 5.8 cards per game.
 * See also: 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hack away as you see fit. Ytny 11:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I went for it. If anyone thinks important informatio nor cites were lost, please consider adding a new entry to the 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies and put a link in this article to it. Mariano (t/c) 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

offsides
Okay, maybe there is a reasonable rationale for leaving the cards/fouls in... but why offsides? Referees very rarely have anything to do with offside calls (except the one notable incident in Switzerland v. South Korea, which should be mentioned). Offside calls depend on either: a good offside trap, badly timed forward runs, or sight-impaired linesmen. Rarely is it relevant to mention routine offside calls in a referee's article. ugen64 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

added back in most of the old stuff
User:Vickser, you said you would be happy to discuss on talk, but made a drastical change to the article without even reading it. The trimming of the article has been already discussed and agreed in this talk page. All the information you restored is either currently at 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies, 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, or are completelly irrelevant (how many off-sides in a match?). The problem with having a fuller article is that the information is duplicated, what might lead to inconsistencies, and add to unreadability. Things should be in their proper place, and a controversy goes beyond the referee itself. Mariano (t/c) 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm happy to discuss. That's why I invited discussion and put an explanation of my changes up in the World Cup Is Over section above.  Regarding the offsides, I think they're worth keeping because this is a ref who's had some controvery about offsides calls and because the linesmen who call the offsides are part of his reffing team and he always works with them.  I think they're rather harmless sentences which may be helpful to the odd reader, but if you feel strongly, I'm not too opposed to removing the number of offsides.  The number of fouls (not listed in the 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article) is worth including because it allows for a fouls to cards comparison.  Is this a ref who's quick to pull out a cards or were these just dirty games?  This is an important question, and one that involves POV.  We can't do that, but we can include the numbers to let readers analyze it.
 * Not all the other information is available in the other articles you cited. You can't get a card count for the pre-knockout games in 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage for obvious reasons.  The SK-Switzerland game isn't covered in 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies or at least wasn't as of this response writing.   Further, even if all the game information was available elsewhere, it would still be useful to have the all important cards & fouls stats right on the ref page.  In the first game he handed out 1 card, in two others he handed out 9.  Knowing that means a lot more than knowing simply that he hands out an average of 5.8.  Knowing all three pieces is even better.
 * Duplication of pure factual material shouldn't lead to inconsistancy, and if it does, then that's because someone getting it wrong. The information on this page regarding fouls, cards, etc. is correct.  If someone else puts it up elsewhere and puts it up incorrectly, that would be inconsistant, but I can't see how having stats correct somewhere and wrong somewhere else is any worse than simply having stats up incorrectly.  Perhaps I'm just not getting what you mean by inconsistancy, and I'd be happy to try and understand.
 * Readability is a real concern, but I don't see this article suffering from it at the moment. The article doesn't strike me as too long.  If people want a rough overview of his 2006 World Cup performance, it's easy to just read the introductory paragraph to the section.  It's well labeled, doesn't exceed any length limits, and the prose isn't too incredibly poor.  Why do you think having the information in the article makes it unreadable? Vickser 06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Korea vs. Switzerland match is covered at 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G. The controversies missing at 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies could (should?) be moved there. I believe that taking out the number of fouls and offsides (what are still available at the external match reports), the rest would be pretty much covered. I still feel that the short version functions as a resume of the hole thing, without superflous or secondary information, and making it a lot easier to read. See that otherwise, the WC2006 is 3 or 4 times larger than the rest of the article. Mariano (t/c) 07:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Frei in offside position when the ball was touched by his teammate? It is very difficult to tell from the video. Frei is going forward as the Korean defender is coming up. When the ball is deflected, Frei is a good yard in offside position, and the AR flags him. But Elizondo sees that the ball went forward off Ho. The correctness of the call has nothing to do with whether Ho's action was a controled play or a deflection, but where Frei was when the ball was send sideways toward Ho.

The citation for Advocaat's acceptance of the call is weak, as the article does not quote him, merely characterizes his response. Elsewhere he is quoted as saying some people had told him the play was on side. Not much of a concession. 192.127.94.7 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
It's been almost six years now, but the section on the England/Portugal game and the red card is still slanted. In particular, "He was criticised for his performances from neutrals and England fans" is a classic weasel statement that, while strictly being true, implies something that is not the case. This is present to some extent in other sections, but not to as great an extent. The sections on the 2006 WC should either be excised or rewritten in a way that removes the slant

Weygander (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)