Talk:2011 Rugby World Cup final

Referee

No mention on Craig Joubert being criticized by the French players but also by many international observers ?

He was heavily criticized by the French team but also by many international observers for having widely favoured the home team, which eventually won 8–7.

--Simon Huet-- 13:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this information should be added in somewhere in the articel.Millertime246 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The losing team criticising the referee is not in itself notable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by one of the playing team are by definition "notable" as this is a primary source. There is a comment on how NZ never lost a game and how France lost to NZ and Tonga in the pool, we could argue it has nothing to do here, but it helps better understand this event. --Simon Huet-- 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinions of the losing players are not notable enough, it happens all the time. Plus it is written in a point of view way. This article is linked from the main page so we should at least try and keep it looking objective. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please give an example if that happens all the time. You're not objective here. It was not written in a point of view way and if it was you should have at least tried to write it correctly. Please defend more your points than just citing policies. --Simon Huet-- 03:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave examples at Craig Joubert: "Warren Gatland criticised Rolland after the red card, Fuimaono-Sapolu‎ criticised Owen on twitter, Smit had a dig at Lawerence and thats just at this world cup." You have violated WP:3RR and I suggest you self revert. If consensus decides to keep a mention of this game then I will work on rewording it (better attribution, less citations, removing " heavily criticized" and "widely favoured" plus the vague statement "many international observers"). AIRcorn (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Warren Gatland and Fuimaono-Sapolu criticisms are reported on their respective pages. As you started this revert war yourself, you will be violating the WP:3RR before me. I suggest we stop this argument right now. I started a discussion to put some information on the page, I got one comment agreeing with me. I put that information. You removed it without reading the discussion or entering in it. I put it back. You entered the discussion and argue and failed to make your point heard or having a consensus. You removed it that information again. I reput it and reworked the line and added counter POV references. If you are still not pleased and feel like that line must be removed instead of arguing with me or build a consensus here feel free to call the WP:BLPN. There is no point in continuing this argument. --Simon Huet-- 05:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And he was " heavily criticized" for having "widely favoured" and by "many international observers". He is accused by some, not just to have not seen an action or been a bad referee on one action. He is accused by some to do everything he could to make the All Blacks win. Please see this video calling him "shameful". "Many international observers" is true as there's multiple sources not just the French or NZ press. "Observers" is a neutral word, not meaning specially expert or anything. --Simon Huet-- 05:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the inclusion of the French reaction to the refereeing is not needed, as comments about refereeing in any high profile game are going to be made, and nothing above points to these being notable. Additionally, as the sentence stood, is was very much in violation of undue because of the number of references it contained for the anti, and the vague nature of the description of "international observers" which could be anyone from the IRB head to anyone of the millions who watched the game. Note: I removed the sentence until consensus is reached as both the above editors were reaching 3RR. Ravendrop 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Gatland one shouldn't be there, the Fuimaona one resulted in a hearing and ban so it should be although it needs to be reworded slightly. Neither are mentioned on the referees page or the 2011 Rugby World Cup page. Either way the existence of the information in other articles is irrelevant, they were given as examples of players/coaches criticising the referee to demonstrate that it is not a notable occurrence. Two to one is a weak consensus and does not justify edit warring, especially as we are now discussing it. I have respected this on Craig Joubert and it would be appreciated if you could do the same here. I am more open to including it in this article and if we want to be constructive we can discuss better wording below. If consensus is reached then we can add it in easily. While this is linked to on the main page it should not contain any potential BLP violations. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That line comes from the Craig Joubert page and it's not me who put it there. I consider it to be fair as it's "heavy" allegations of "widely" favoritism, not just missing seeing something at one point during the game. More than happy to work with you on something else. --Simon Huet-- 06:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, the following points should be borne in mind: 1) The words "heavy", "widely" and "many" are weasel words that should not be included in the article. 2) If it is decided that post-match comments and criticisms should be included, then the eye-gouging of Richie McCaw should surely be mentioned, as this incident could equally have led to a penalty for the All Blacks, or even a red card for the French captain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.32.107 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I have not seen that many references supporting the eye-gouging offence. The nzherald, (as far as I know), is the only reliable source to mention it, and even they are a bit vague about it. Are there any other sources showing the incident? FFMG (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the eye gouge is a non starter (it wasn't Dusautoir BTW) as no official complaint has been laid and it is all speculation at the moment. The trouble with writing encyclopaedic sports articles is that the main source of information comes from sports journalists who tend to sensationalise everything. Your first comment is right on the money however. In any game there are going to be 50 - 50 calls that could go either way, people just seem to remember the ones that go against there team. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am too thinking this eye gouge should not be mentioned. Firstly because we could also mention other offences that same player who may have been eye-gouged did earlier in the game. And if we start citing some error we should list all of them which is absurd. --Simon Huet-- 10:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still in favor of citing those sources AND only say "the referee was criticized by multiple, French but ALSO international sources". That way it shows there is some not specially biased bad opinion on the refereeing. It is possible to cite some other sources praising the referee but ONLY if they are not only NZ. Not mentioning those critics is also a way to show only one side of the story. Even if for now those comments are removed (censored???) by unbiased user (mainly from NZ supporters???) they will never go away and I am pretty sure in due time there will be an enough consensus to include those comments. --Simon Huet-- 10:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Refereeing wording

I am still unsure about the notability of this, although it will fit in here much better than on the Craig Joubert article. The discussion is also a bit fragmented so hopefully we can work on it here.

The current phrasing is:

Afterwards Craig Joubert, the referee, was heavily criticized by the French team but also by many international observers for having widely favoured the home team. However he received support from former New Zealand referee Kelvin Deaker and praised from France captain, Thierry Dusautoir, as being one of the best referee in the world.

I would suggest attributing everything. If it is decided to be included I would suggest this wording, with selected quotes from notable individuals. I am more than happy to not have anything in this article and will strongly argue against any inclusion in the Craig Joubert article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

After the game some French players criticised the performance of the referee, Craig Joubert. Dimitri Szarzewski said that Joubert did not punish the New Zealand players "unless the fault was really rough", Dimitri Yachvili said he "did not want us [France] to win" and Maxime Mermoz said that a punch by Piri Weepu went unpenalised. Former welsh rugby player Eddie Butler and English journalist Jason Cowley wrote on their blogs that Joubert appeared more sympathetic to the All Blacks. According to Kelvin Deaker, a former international referee from New Zealand, the final proved that Joubert was "the right man" to be in charge, while the French captain Thierry Dusautoir refused to criticise him, saying he is "one of the best in the world."

I'm inclined to agree with Aircorn. So the losing team, and some/many pundits who are paid to say controversial things thought the referee was poor. So what?

It is a form of original research to dig up various sources which express the same opinion and synthesise it to make the point that he was widely criticised. If there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which report that the referee was widely criticised - i.e. if the criticism itself is notable enough to be reported - then it would be legit to include it. I'm not sure if that's the case here. I don't support cherry-picking from among the hundreds of reporters who commented on the game to find examples of criticism, and, by attributing each comment, giving the appearance of legitimacy. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please BiggerAristotle don't assume I am doing something wrong. I did not cherry picked those articles. They were only 20 articles on the subject on Google News, including those in favor of Joubert. Go find those hundreds before accusing others. Thanks. --Simon Huet-- 15:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying you are doing anything wrong - sorry if I gave that impression. Among the hundreds of reports of the final, there are obviously plenty of sources which criticise Joubert; however, none of them are especially notable in themselves and it is original research for us to conclude that there was widespread criticism etc by counting them. If there is significant coverage of the criticism in reliable secondary sources, it would be correct to include it. BiggerAristotle (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not concluding anything, we are just saying there is an existing criticism. Not saying anything is in regards to the existing coverage and available sources not accurate. For secondary source : Rugby: Williams slams performance of World Cup ref Joubert. --Simon Huet-- 04:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If there was widespread criticism, there should be a source which says that there was widespread criticism. If we are to include this, there should really be several such sources. A source which says "Player/coach/pundit X criticised the referee" is not the same thing. BiggerAristotle (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is "Rugby World Cup final ref rejects tide of criticism" enough for you? Does "tide of criticism" can be considered "widespread"? :-) Please do a Google query for "craig joubert criticism" before saying it does not exist. --Simon Huet-- 11:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References

POV check

The "Controversy" section looks pretty non-neutral to me. Seems to be a bit of cherry picking of quotes and references, and strangely finishes with a claim the final was not decided by refereeing decision, but implies the opposite throughout the rest of the section. I've asked for a POV check because of all this. -- Shudde ^talk 10:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The French article (which isn't dedicated just to the final, but to the entire knock-out phase) doesn't seem to weight so heavily into criticism of Joubert. -- Shudde ^talk 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To balance things out maybe the opinion of the current IRB High Performance Match Official Manager, Joel Jutge, would be worth including. http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/news/le-debrief-de-joel-jutge--vis-ma-vie-de-craig-joubert--.php His conclusion after comparing his own decisions with those of Joubert is "On se rend donc compte que la performance du Sud-Africain est vraiment proche de ce qu'on peut attendre d'un arbitre de haut-niveau." or roughly "We therefore realize that the performance of the South African is really close to what can be expected of a high-level referee." Phod78 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a re-write. No POV check has been performed, but no one has chimed in objecting to my complaints. So I'll take that as a bit of agreement. Thanks for the quote. – Shudde ^talk 02:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And 4 years later: ″Woodward: Ref robbed France in 2011" in NZ Herald (Tuesday, 08 September 2015)... I see RWC 2011 final for the first time yesterday evening, the refereeing was just shameful, McCaw again and again off-side in the rucks (maybe 10 or 15 times, only 2 penalties for France) and punch and knee shots of McCaw (again) on Parra's face. GabrieL (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Rugby World Cup Final. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024053835/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match=11235/report.html to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match=11235/report.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/213687/movie-planned-on-donald's-winning-kick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Rugby World Cup Final. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026005150/http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/world-cup/news/article/-/10770375/world-cup-glory-for-the-all-blacks-just/ to http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/world-cup/news/article/-/10770375/world-cup-glory-for-the-all-blacks-just/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022210418/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match%3D11235/index.html to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match%3D11235/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025101535/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match%3D11235/statistics.html to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/matches/match%3D11235/statistics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231022558/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/rugby/article-24001600-all-blacks-emerge-from-the-trenches-smiling.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/rugby/article-24001600-all-blacks-emerge-from-the-trenches-smiling.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rwc2011.irb.com/home/matches/match%3D11235/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Rugby World Cup Final. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103235555/http://www.irb.com/jwc/news/newsid=2060448.html to http://www.irb.com/jwc/news/newsid=2060448.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/213687/movie-planned-on-donald's-winning-kick

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)