Talk:Mark Geiger

Panama vs. Mexico Controversy

This story has come up all over sports news, and has been covered by almost every credible sports related news source. I think we should put in a new section about the controversy that he caused in that match. However, and this is important, it must reliably sourced, and must be written from an objective standpoint! I will attempt this, but if you have any inquiries about what I wrote in the new section, please respond. --Bobtinin (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I just noticed that it says that Luis Tejada elbowed Carlos Vela, but he elbowed Francisco Javier Rodríguez. Since the article is protected I can't make the change. --User:189.208.48.118

My only comment is WP:Undue weight - the length of that portion of the article is too long. I made it much shorter and put details in a footnote --Trödel 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian yet. I will remember in the future to balance the good and the bad within each article I edit. --Bobtinin (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015

The "hand ball" was not failed to be called. In Geiger's judgement, while the ball hit the hand, the hand did not deliberately play the ball. 69.81.183.197 (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done I've updated the text to more closely match the source. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Undue

I feel having a whole section titled controversies is undue in a WP:BLP article on a referee. If a controversy (a overused and exaggerated word in sports journalism) is significant it would have had an impact on his career and fit in the article there. Of all the controversies only the second paragraph might deserve a (much reduced) mention in the career section. The rest are stock standard fan, player and team complaints that follow most games and there is no indication that they affected Geigers career in any way. Please note WP:BALASP which is policy and explains that we cannot highlight non-notable events disproportionately, especially in a BLP. AIRcorn (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the definition on Collins Dictionary, a controversy refers to an occasion in which there're strong disagreements regarding what exactly happened. The main-de-Dieu goal that Thierry Henri scored against Ireland was a controversy. The "phantom goal" that Frank Lampard scored against Germany was a controversy. Therefore, calling controversy an "overused and exaggerated word in sports journalism" is anything but correct.

On the other hand, anyone who has concerns about "unbalanced viewpoints" is always free to add reliable third-party sources. But given that all these controversies happened during professional not-exhibition matches (rather than a charity match, etc.), the action itself of calling them "non-notable" has to be motivated by something other than current WP rules.

Therefore, in response, I'm adding {{COI}}.

Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that here The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Therefore if you want to add minor negative incidents, the onus is on you to balance them properly. If you can demonstrate that any of these minor controversies had an impact on his career (football refs get stood down all the time when they have bad games so this should not be difficult) I am willing to put it in myself. Your addition of a COI demonstrates that you are not looking to be reasonable and not very well versed in how things work around here. AIRcorn (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do here is to acknowledge that they exist. If others want to tone it down for the sake of neutrality (without denying the existence of these controversies, that is), by all means. However, all I see here is someone (one of the most active editors of the Referee-Related Article Working Group) trying to impose a censorship on any events that does not make a referee look spotless.

There's a saying about weather forecasters: "When they get it right, nobody remembers. When they get it wrong, nobody forgets." The same should apply to referees. If they have been accused of not doing their job properly, such accusation should not be censored. As for whether these accusations would stand in a tribunal, that's for the tribunal to decide. But WP:BLP does not green-light the censorship of controversies. Otherwise, all his awards should be removed as well in order not to make this article look like praising Geiger like a god of football. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

For a referee to be notable they must be good referees. Otherwise they would not be refereeing at a high enough level to meet our notability guidelines. For a biography to be balanced it should reflect that success. Your comparison to weather forecasters is inane and has nothing to do with writing a biography. This has nothing to do with censorship, it is all about enforcing WP:Undue. He has been refereeing at a high level for 13 years, including knock-out matchs at a world cup. Therefore a large section devoted to questioning single decisions he has made in a few games is highly undue. This is a big place, there will be articles on these games where in depth analysis of plays and decisions is more appropriate. Unless it has had an effect on his career, as this article is about his career, then they do not belong here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

All I see you doing is manipulating the notability guidelines. If it was true that "For a referee to be notable they must be good referees", then how did the likes of Tim Donaghy and Tom HeInning Øvrebø end up on Wikipedia? Just because they're high-level professional referees does not make them good referees. Just because there're days when they do their job properly does not mean there aren't days when they just aren't doing their job. While openly judging them might violate WP:POV, simply acknowledging that those controversies exist does not.

According to the definition on Collins Dictionary, a censor is someone who is "authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc.". As for the case here, none of the contents that you're trying to suppress are even remotely obscene, discriminative, etc. and yet you're going so far as to (probably intentionally) confusing description of controversies and subjective criticism in order to suppress them.

If you wish to reflect their success, nobody will stop you. However, that should not become an excuse to censor contents about controversies that they're involved in. I'm making myself very clear: What you're trying to suppress are encyclopaedic contents and shall not be deleted just because you don't like it. Though, if you can manage to get the "People vs. Turner" section on Aaron Persky removed, I may end up backing down. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course being a high level referee makes you a good referee. Just like being a high level sportsman means you are good at that sport. Otherwise you don't get to that level. If they became bad referees (not just having the odd bad day, something which every sportsman has too) then they would be dropped down a level. This would then be a notable occurrence in their career and need to be mentioned in their bio.

I am using policy to support my arguments, you are relying on dictionary definitions and other stuff existing. You are not even addressing or reading the policies I am linking. For example above you say If you wish to reflect their success, nobody will stop you. However, that should not become an excuse to censor contents about controversies that they're involved in. I already linked above the BLP policy WP:BLPSTYLE, which explicitly says "the idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies." So policy says we cannot have an unbalanced article and wait for someone else to balance it.

It is interesting you are comparing sections of an article on a judge that gave a light sentence to someone with three counts of sexual assault to Geiger upsetting fans because he called a foul on a player. Some perspective is needed. For what its worth I do think the section is undue and now that it has been brought to my attention I will tag it as such. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Cedric has been indefinitely blocked due to an unrelated incident. I would welcome any silent talk page watchers that wish to continue this discussion to post, otherwise I will revert to this version. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done AIRcorn (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Geiger. 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/20150723080617/http://www.refereeassociation.net/articles.php?ID=83 to http://www.refereeassociation.net/articles.php?ID=83
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603223128/http://www.proreferees.com/roster-referees.php to http://www.proreferees.com/roster-referees.php

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) 05:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

In the World Cup statistics for Mr. Geiger, for the 3 July 2018 match between Colombia and England in the group field change "Group Stage" to "Round of 16". Joncn (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hhkohh (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: controversies with Colombia vs England

An excerpt

"Geiger then officiated the FIFA World Cup 2018 Round of 16 game between Colombia and England on Tuesday 3 July. His performance proved to be controversial, with criticism from both sets of teams."

This notes both sets of teams, yet there is absolutely nothing about the issues the Colombian team were causing, it's all accounts of Colombians feeling supposedly cheated for 4 sentences. This is not impartial at all and should be changed to include the other sides perspective also. There are ample links that could be provided:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/alan-shearers-extraordinary-offair-rant-at-cheating-robbing-colombia-a3879276.html

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/11426971/john-stones-says-colombia-are-the-dirtiest-team-he-has-ever-faced

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/11425441/colombias-wilmar-barrios-should-have-been-sent-off-against-england-says-gary-neville

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/4/blog/post/3556261/england-embrace-ugly-win-vs-colombia-as-world-cup-turns-feisty

00aa0 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

I would recommend removing the following paragraphs. My reasoning is that referees are ALWAYS criticized for their games. Opinions of players and pundits is not factual. The factual list of the games he covered in the 2018 FIFA World Cup is listed in the table further down the page.

Geiger would then be selected for the second group stage match of Group B between Portugal and Morocco. Following the game, Nordin Amrabat claimed that Geiger had asked for a Jersey from one of the Portuguese players during the match, stating, "I don't know what Geiger is used to, but he was very impressed by Cristiano Ronaldo. I've been just told by Pepe that in the first half, he asked if he could have his shirt. Come on, man. What are we talking about? ... We are at the World Cup, not a circus here."

FIFA would deny allegations as well as Geiger himself.[21][22]

Karim El Ahmadi was also critical of Grieger, claiming that Cristiano Ronaldo's fourth-minute goal should not have been awarded because "a foul was committed".[23]

In the match between Denmark and Australia, he worked as the VAR for the game between Denmark and Australia and suggested the match official look at a penalty decision that allowed the Socceroos to score and secure a 1-1 draw.[24][25]

There was some controversy to the VAR that was claimed, as Denmark's coach, Åge Hareide stated, "I do believe there was a penalty, but the whole issue with VAR is that there are people somewhere in Russia to look at decisions because it looks like it could maybe have been a penalty. But other situations they are not having a look at. So who is deciding? The referee on the pitch or people in dark rooms elsewhere in Russia? In my opinion, it removes a bit of the charm of football.”[26]

Geiger then officiated the FIFA World Cup 2018 Round of 16 game between Colombia and England on Tuesday 3 July. His performance proved to be controversial, with criticism from both sets of teams.[27] Colombia captain Radamel Falcao and Manager Jose Pekerman both accused Geiger of favouring the England team during the game.[28][29][30]

Diego Maradona claimed favoritism against Colombia, citing that "England's penalty was a terrible call and that the ref won the match for England" and that Colombia were victims of a "monumental robbery".[31][32][33][34] FIFA said Maradona's claims were "entirely inappropriate and completely unfounded."[citation needed]

Jose Mourinho was also very critical of the English squad, claiming ‘theatrical’ antics from them as well as the overall referring done while stating, "I was surprised to see central defenders like Harry Maguire, normally he is a very honest guy, diving in the attacking box asking the referee for VAR. Every team has lots of diving, lots of pretending, lots of putting pressure on the referee. The game loses quality…and for me that was the negative point.”[35][36][37] Bcmull (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Since it is a BLP it should be removed until consensus canbe established that it belongs in this article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It has been added in again without explanation on how it does not violate Undue. I have tagged it again and asked the editor to comment here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at making this a bit more NPOV by reorganizing the structure to focus on the games Geiger worked at the tournament and reduce the lengthy quotes but still capture the substance of critiques following the games (and of course, leaving the references so anyone who wants the full critiques can read them). I'm not a super-Wikipedian, but I'm open to feedback or thoughts on the edits (and fwiw, I was the original author of this page many moons ago) ObliviousScout (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)ObliviousScout

Trimmed it some more. Unless it has an impact on his career the standard complaints following a game don't belong in a BLP. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Agreed that the "controversies" shouldn't get prominence if they don't impact his career. ObliviousScout (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)ObliviousScout

Geiger's refereeing performance during Colombia vs England did not receive standard refereeing criticism. It was roundly criticised by both teams, as well as in the world media at the time. It is therefore worthy of a mention in the article. See Tom Henning Øvrebø --SomewhereInLondon (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)