Talk:Stuart Dickinson

Controversy at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final
Can the idiots who claim that he 'killed Tates (sic) try' stop trying to vandalise this page? Firstly, it wasn't even Tait's try, and secondly it was legitimately disallowed. (Jpgrantham 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

The picture posted by Jpgrantham in the section "Controversy at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final" doesn't show Cueto's foot on the line, actually beside it, and as such is decaying the integrety of wikipedia. Will1212


 * If the point of the toe of the boot touches the inside edge of the line, as appears to be the case in the BBC photo, the TMO has to rule it in touch. You can look at the photo on the website and argue that the angle and the resolution leave some room for doubt. The point however is that the BBC published this photo next to the statement "the television match official correctly ruled he had just put a foot in touch". One can therefore conclude that the BBC's journalist and editors, who have access to hi-res video of the incident, have looked at it and consider that the foot was in touch. Therefore, citing the BBC as authority, the integrity of Wikipedia is not compromised. Rexparry sydney 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the the author Jpgrantham considers those holding views other than his own as 'idiots' would indicate that that person is not totally unbiased. The fact of the matter is that the picture in question does NOT show a foot in touch, the view that the decision was correct is highly contentious and that the vast majority of England supporters would consider the decision of the Australian controversial. Given that the majority of this entry is therefore incorrect, it should be amended or deleted forthwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by General.tactifer (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is highly controversial whatever way you look at it. In the intrests of neutrality, both arguments should be considered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.57 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No video or photo that i have seen has shown conclusively one way or the other that Cueto's boot touched/ or was over the line. Therefore I think it is fair for fans to question Dickinson's integrity. Please also bear in mind that in all previous instances that i have seen; TMO's have under similar circumstances given the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. Further to this I am pretty sure that if there is no conclusive evidence to disallow a try then it must be given- however I am not 100% sure on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.213.11 (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your last point is right in the sense that the referee asks the TMO "Is there any reason that a try should not be awarded?" Phrased this way, it has to be conclusive to the TMO that there is a reason, and doubt should lead to the answer "no" to the referee's question. I think this is the only way that a TMO can give benefit of the doubt in relation to being in touch, as the rugby union laws do not provide for it (though I can't rule out that other IRB guidelines may do so). On another matter, now that you can see a video (link provided below) I'm sure you'd want to withdraw your first two sentences. Rexparry sydney 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The footnote, as it's currently written says "The photo with the caption "England went desperately close through winger Mark Cueto" is three-quarters of the way down the page. Other photos (example) show that a fraction of a second later, Cueto lifted his foot off the line." This is not written neutrally. All it really implies is that whomever has edited the article cannot find a photo of Cueto with his foot in touch! That doesn't mean his foot wasn't in touch; just that there is not a photo available of it. I'm going to reward it in a tone that doesn't imply otherwise. - Shudde   talk  02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider those holding a different view to my own to be idiots - that was directed at whoever it was who was repeatedly vandalising the page. Furthermore, I didn't post any picture, and if you look at previous edits, the original wording of the World Cup final controversy was far more biased than anything I have written. Jpgrantham 09:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am annoyed that i'm on a final warning for vandalism because i started the level 2 headline "2007 Rugby World Cup final" i do not consider this an act of vandalism. I feel that this subject ,as many others seem to, played a major part in the outcome of the '07 rugby world cup. whether his decision was right or wrong. I agree with Shuddle that the benefit of the doubt should of been given to the attacking side. --Will1212 10:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pls see your talk page. The final warning was not of course for starting that heading. Rexparry sydney 00:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to make it clear: http://gary.bloxio.us/a/cueto-try/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.86.8 (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules of Rugby give benefit of the doubt to the the defending team, unlike rugby league which gives it to the attacker. Therefore if the evidence is not conclusive a try has been scored the ref cannot award it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect -- the laws of rugby union do not say that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team. Doubt in relation to game situations is mentioned in the laws only three times, with benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team in two cases (unplayable ball at the breakdown, and who gets the throw at a lineout). The third case relates to which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal: benefit of the doubt is shared, a try is not scored (as it would be in rugby league where the law specifically states that simultaneous grounding results in a try), but the attacking team gets another chance with the put-in to a 5 m scrum, so you could say benefit of the doubt is shared. There's no mention of doubt in relation to being in touch. You can't conclude that the laws favour the defending team.Rexparry sydney 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He should not be involved in Rugby Union again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.131.134 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the media
The Rugby Heaven website (part of the Sydney Morning Herald) mentions this article in "Wikipedia protects Stu Dickinson's profile". The journos are making some progress in understanding the democratic nature of Wikipedia, after the same media outlet referred to the Wayne Barnes article as being "hacked" when it was vandalised. (Incidentally, lest anyone thinks Wikipedia violated copyright, Rugby Heaven is wrong to refer to the article's "use of a BBC photo": the article only linked to a BBC pages with photos.) Rexparry sydney 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)