list Of 2010 Fifa World Cup Controversies

The comment calls for a section about a "disallowed goal", presumably Skrtel's goal line clearance, and subsequent calls for goal line technology. I have not heard this moment called controversial by neutrals, so I'm going to delete this section. If someone has a neutral source for these claims, they can add it back into the article. (My opinion, FWIW: no available replay clearly shows the ball over the line, unlike Lampard's disallowed goal. Using NFL-style replay guidelines, there is no evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. If every replay and photo supports the referee, there's nothing controversial about the incident) --74.57.177.192 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I watched the game and read reports afterwards - I don't remember anyone asserting that the ball had crossed the line at all.Ubertoaster (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's offside, though according to International Board rules it is for such a narrow margin that must never be called, unless technologies like Hawk-Eye are used; and
• no, not only red card is not unfair (there is elbowing) but it had to come earlier (aggresion from Ricardo Costa to David Villa).

Also there are two penalties, from Fabio Coentrao to Fernando Torres and from Ricardo Carvalho to Fernando Llorente; and finally an incredible laissez faire to Pepe's harsh gamestyle. I conclude that the corresponding match section is biased and wrong as it suggests that Portugal was eliminated because of referee's influence, not being true; if such section about controversies is included it should include all controversies. Aiarakoa (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the material you have referenced state that the offside (22cms) was too narrow a margin to be called. Hence, the offside stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.167 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you should re-read what I wrote. I didn't ask to put the off-side out of this section (I just commented that referees must not call for unclear situations), I asked to put all controversies regarding this match in this section. Because of the same reason, I would ask to include the Ramos foul (not penalty, was outside the area) & red card for the action against Özil at the end of the first half. It is called justice (and sticking to the facts) Aiarakoa (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right - any controversy should be covered (so long as it has references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.167 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Another biased section. Step by step:

• yes, the action between Estrada and Fernando Torres should haven't been even foul, as any contact between them was clearly unwilling;
  • however, the sent-off player should have been sent off earlier, as having already a yellow card he fouled Iniesta earning a second yellow card he did not see
  • by the time the chilean player was sent off, the score was 0-2 (Villa, Iniesta)
• also, another chilean player, Ponce, should have been sent off because of a violent tackle which hit Alonso's ankle, causing him an injury that forced his substitution

Another section that suggests that Spain may have been favoured, that the result was conditioned by the referee's decisions. Suming the penalties not conceded during the 4 played matches (suffered by Silva, Villa, Torres, Llorente, etc), and the red cards not shown to Grichting (against Switzerland) and Ponce (against Chile), one thinks that such sections doesn't meet at all the expectable fairness. Aiarakoa (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no. I think there was only one clear referring error in the match, and that was the sending off. It has no relevance as to how it affected the scoreline, and it isn't a matter of being fair between Spain and Chile. It is about mistakes of the officials, not which team was hard done by.--EchetusXe 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, Chile's Ponce violently hit Alonso's ankle, without even seeing a yellow card (it had to be red card). And, while sending off Estrada for what happened with Torres was a blatant mistake, actually he should have been sent off earlier for a foul on Iniesta, having Estrada already a yellow card. Being fair is including in this controversy section all existing controversies, instead of including (in this section and also in the Spain vs Portugal one) only controversies favouring Spain. Aiarakoa (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Suarez's handball during stoppage time of extra time should be mentioned. It is the only reason that Uruguay had a chance to (and did) advance. The referees decision certainly wasn't controversial, but the play was. 69.178.104.87 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy here. He saved his team from defeat by committing a foul, and was immediately caught and punished with a red card.--EchetusXe 17:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section. Not a refereeing controversy but certainly an element of gamesmanship.  Francium12  23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that someone has made two separate paragraphs, one for "Errors" and one for "Disputed Decisions", the former for refereeing errors, the other for what may amount to people just complaining because they didn't get the result they wanted.

Certainly this separation is both POV and OR? For instance, the referee/linesman who made a call, would believe that their call was justified. And, as shown by the frequent removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy, "believing is seeing". I watched England-Germany and Italy-Slovakia, and if anything, the Italy ball was far more convincingly over the line than Lampard's shot. However, just because the Anglocentric media didn't report it that way, and the current anti-Italian bias is in full-force, not to mention the Slovakian defender is a a star of a Premiership club, we read about how it was cleared "off the line", while Lampard, hero of Chelsea and England, was "robbed".

The central point however is that having one ditor decide which are "Errors" and which merely "Disputed Decisions" is obviously POV. Any thoughts/suggestions? 41.132.229.210 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is acceptable or not, but on another discussion page here the reason for the removal of the Italy-Slovakia controversy is "We saw the ball not cross the line"(OR and POV) and anything besides a few key moments(including Lampard) is "the rest of the crap". Certainly that should not be criteria for inclusion or exclusion? 41.132.229.210 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people have come to accept that the second goal of Netherlands was offside, which the referee didn't see. It was a turning point in the game and another referee mistake that should be noted in the article. - Sacchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.69.66 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, with 1:0 there was a foul committed by van Bommel (he didn't see even a yellow card), and a penalty from van Bronckhorst to Cavani (there is no fairness in charging with the elbow). Too many decisions conditioning the result, specially the red card as Netherlands would have played 70-75 minutes 10 against 11. Aiarakoa (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the match controversies in any particular order? It does seem to by round, alphabetically, or in chronological order. I suggest we order by phase first (i.e. Group stage, Round of 16, Quarter-finals, etc.) and then alphabetically by first team listed (then by second team listed if there happens to be any controversies with the same lead team in the same stage). E.g. (where Team x is the name of a country):

Group stage

Team A vs. Team D

Team F vs. Team C

Team F vs. Team H

Round of 16

Team D vs. Team C

Is there any sources about how Spain encroached in the Paraguay penalty shot? Kingjeff (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Paraguay had a legitimate goal disallowed and ruled as offside even though Oscar Cardozo did not touch the ball before it went to the goalscorer, meaning the play was onside. This meant that if the goal was allowed to stand and the score remained thus then the match would have gone into extra-time and perhaps even penalties. There is therefore no judging who would have therefore won the game had the goal stood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well folks, the World cup is over and it's time to start whittling this down to be more like an encyclopedia article. Only incidents which generated lasting and severe repercussions need be dealt with here; every single "we-wuz-robbed" article from a sports website doesn't need to be reflected here. Any takers? --John (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to immediately respond to the above comment by saying that near enough all incidents mentioned should be listed on the page. The article for the controversies of the 2006 World Cup is much larger than the one for the 2010 World Cup, even though there were more "controversial" decisions in 2010. I do believe that all the incidents warrant a section but need to be written in an impartial manner, which may be the problem. A suggestion would be to categorize the incidents in exactly the same way the page for the 2006 World Cup does, actual controversies and then disputed decisions. The incidents on this discussion page should perhaps be mentioned on a "disputed decisions" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.108.11 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Spain's encroachment of Paraguay's penalty shot is worth mentioning if sources could be found. Kingjeff (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ghana v Germany can go for a start. It's sourced to a blog and had no impact on either side's progress. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the Ghana vs Germany. First it's not sourced to a blog, but to a live report. I can also source i.e. Skysports (http://www.skysports.com/football/world-cup-2010/match-report/0,28360,12097_3222307,00.html) or to the situation itself. I do accept that it had no lasting impact and was quickly forgotton, but it still happened. Maruti 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I also believe that the Australia vs Ghana part should be thrown out. It was a clear handball, there was no controversy about the penalty call apart from Australians and really it is quite ridiculous to even list it as something 'controversial'. The only thing that is maybe controversial is whether the red card was too harsh, but those are the RULES. The decision was correct, but maybe the rules suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.183.134 (talk)
The reference that was cited prior to its removal was this one, which describes itself as a "live blog". As such it wouldn't be considered reliable. The Sky Sports one is reliable, but the relevant quote is as follows: "Ghana responded with their best chance of the half as Gyan glanced on a corner which was halted on the line by Lahm, with a suspicion of handball over the German captain's block." That isn't really conclusive enough to base its inclusion on; we'd really need something more concrete. The Australia-Ghana one is interesting; on the one hand, FIFA say that the decision was non-controversial, but on the other, high-quality independent sources such as this covering the decision itself in detail. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Good points. I only mentioned the missed handball in the Ghana-Germany game, because there was a similar non-call in the other game. Had both been called Serbia would have not advanced anyway. My point is that if you mention the Serbian non-call the Ghana non-call should also be mentioned. Maruti 11:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.239.202 (talk)

It should never have bene spun out in the first place, and this only happened because people bought into the nonsense that the main article is just a wallchart, that articles can be cleaned up with cut and paste moves and leaving empty headers behind, and that the rubbish that is the 2006 article is somehow a fine article, worthy of use as a template. The ridiculous and unchecked bloating only occured right after it was spun out, as can be seen in the history, aided and abetted by the principle of out of sight out of mind. And in that grand tradition, now that it is out here in the wastelands and only comes to my mind occasionaly, I find myself not caring what it says, although I do turn to it if in need of occasional merriment to see what people have added as a 'controversy'. Hopefully people won't be so lax in 2014 and let this sort of thing happen again, but I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed out most of the refereeing section; someone thinking a ref made a mistake is not in itself notable. Indeed it happens in almost every game. Only a few of these incidents will have a lasting impact. Let's remember that going forwards. --John (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good work for the most part. I just wonder if you may have removed a few that do have some claim to lasting impact. I was thinking in particular of Germany vs Australia, Brazil vs Ivory Coast and Spain vs Paraguay, where the balance of coverage and the effect they had on the teams' performance in the tournament might be enough to justify inclusion. Also, why was USA vs Slovenia left in when it had no effect on the result of the group? If lasting impact is the inclusion criteria then this one should go too. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a storm in a teacup really. --John (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

John - you exaggerated big time with the cutting. Please check i.e. the similar 2006 thread. Most controversies existed. You may as well delete the whole thread. You didn't clean up the thread, you made it irrelevant and useless. a) Nigeria - Argentina: The bad call that was publicly noted by FIFA changed the way refs refereed and made them focus much stronger on what goes on in the box during set pieces. b) Germany - Australia: Yes, useless. c) South Africa - Uruguay interesting situation, but pointless. d) Germany - Serbia: Basically people bickering about the ref being too harsh. It's his right and the ref made it clear very early on about his policy being very consistent about it. e) Slovenia - United States: I would leave this as this was one of the most controversial decisions of the World Cup. f) Australia - Ghana: Useless. People bickering, but not knowing the rules of the game. g) Brasil - Cote d'Ivoire: The double hand-ball was probably the biggest bad call of the non-group phase and remains so. Plus the widely publicised Kaka incident. It should stay. h) Chile - Switzerland: Bickering. i) United States - Algeria: Thing is there was MINIMAL offside. So what's the controversy? The fact that it is minimal? j) Australia - Serbia: This can stay, but than it should be mentioned that there was a missed handball in the second game and if the other game had finished 1:1 than Serbia wouldn't have advanced anyway.k) Italy - Slovakia: NOt sure. Didn't watch the game and don't know the situations. l) Chile - Spain: Bickering.I would therefore leave 3 games for sure with 2 more possibly (j and k) if they are corrected/verified.Maruti 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. We need some reliable sources to back up your assertions about notability. Pop them up here and we can take a look. Otherwise it's just your opinion. Best, --John (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... You're pulling a catch 23 on me... I'll stick with the ones I think are relevant, whilst the rest I find trivial... let that be someone elses battle: a) Nigeria - Argentina: http://www.goal.com/en/news/1863/world-cup-2010/2010/06/15/1977735/world-cup-2010-gabriel-heinzes-argentina-strike-should-have-been- "Although the ruling comes too late for Nigeria, it has interesting implications for the rest of the tournament; a sign that FIFA will not tolerate the pushing, shoving and holding commonplace on both sides at dead-ball situations, and that in future such offences will be punished with either disallowed goals or penalties in the case of the defence committing an infraction."; b) USA - Slovenia: I agree the end result turned out to be irrelevant, but we didn't know that before the USA - Algeria game. The dissallowed goal was the most publicized decision made by a referee in the group phase and as such should feature. I can post multiple articles, but the point is that it was a VERY CONTROVERSIAL decision. c) Cote d'Ivoire - Brasil: Apart from the two incidents with Argentina and England in the knockout phases. He handballed TWICE, the goal stood and than you saw the ref chit-chatting about the incident and laughing about it! It is one of the most remembered controversies and notable incidents put forth for a need to change the rules (i.e. http://www.africahit.com/news/article/soccer/10417/ "Tevez’s offside goal against Mexico in the Round of 16, and Luis Fabiano’s multiple hand balls in what would otherwise have been a brilliant effort in his group stage goal against Côte d'Ivoire, are some of the other stand out shockers from this World Cup.") What was shocking is that the Kaka red card got more publicity although it was totally irrelevant to anything. (i.e. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/409028-no-outrage-from-americans-for-handball-and-poor-officiating). The outcry in Africa was huge (i.e. http://www.panapress.com/freenews.asp?code=eng050665&dte=21/06/2010) It was one of the few incidents that i.e. Maradona commented on (http://soccerlens.com/maradona-i-didnt-see-the-referee-smile-after-the-goal-against-england/48328/). All three incidents are a must in this subject, especially if you take the 2006 article as a role model (which has much lesser scandals listed). The cutting of this article makes it look like this cup was unmarred by controversy in comparison, whilst it was just the opposite - no single controversy was anywhere near what happened to Mexico, England or Cote d'Ivoire. Maruti 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.239.202 (talk)

I think Frank Lampard's disallowed goal is one of the most controversial topic however I do not see it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.92.92 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow this link - second paragraph - cheers --Boy.pockets (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please fix the grammar in the article. "This reportedly reducing the players, especially the younger ones, to tears and they applauded her". What the hell does that mean? I would have fixed myself but I don't know what the heck this is talking about. I am seeing more of this in the English section of Wiki English. Nobody wants you to contribute if you cannot speak English, please contribute in your own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709201348/http://www.worldcup.cbssports.com:80/page/NewsDetail/0,,13041~2085070,00.html to http://www.worldcup.cbssports.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,13041~2085070,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100625052402/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6DlEmqjhIryg_eszxSEz0bfscuAD9GGC1LG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6DlEmqjhIryg_eszxSEz0bfscuAD9GGC1LG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

As we approach yet another WC tournament, I believe that now is an appropriate time to revisit some key issues (at least IMHO).

I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 1998 and 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies articles (see here).

Those of you who followed the process will remember the 2002 article was the subject of two deletion debates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort.

Here's hoping for a fantastic competition!

Regards. Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thabane Bele 105.0.1.228 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)