Talk:UEFA Euro 2008

Title

On the basis that the New Zealand national rugby union team page is titled All Blacks because it's the most commonly used term, shouldn't this simply be called Euro 2008? That's the official name on the logo. Mjefm 12:17, September 27, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but they weren't actually called the Euros until 1972. It's a choice between a standardised name or differing common names. Then again, they are retrospectively referred to as Euro '68 etc.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA also refer to them as UEFA Euro 2008 so moving the page is a possibility Chaza93 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions

How popular are the Euro matches, and what is the prize for the winning team?  QuizQuick  14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular? Very. Prize? Don't know. —Nightstallion (?) 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The winning team gets a trophy to keep for the next four years. Certain expenses (e.g. travel costs) are re-embursed by UEFA. The main prize of course is national pride. Regulations of the tournament - aheyfromhome 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the finals are just as popular(maybe a percent lower) as the World Cup Finals is in Europe, so that should give you some idea and as the World Cup 2006 top 4 teams (6 of the top 8 and 10 of the top 16) were European, so if you win you can almost claim that you are the best in the world. For example, France took the FIFA world ranking top spot not when they won the World Cup 98, but after they won the Euro 2000. ^CHANDLER   08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i think it's ridiculous to say that if you win the Euro finals then "you can almost claim that you are the best in the world". What about south america, where the level of football is just as high as in europe. and i do recall that brasil, uruguay, and argentina are among multiple world cup winners. Ulipika (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The point that was just made answers your question. Look at the last World Cup for goodness sake. Did Brazil get to the semis? No. Did Argentina get to the semis? No. Uruguay. When did they last get beyond round 2? 1970!!! TheTrojanHought (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Brazil won the world cup 5 times (more than any other country)! Two of these were after 1970 (1994, and 2002).Zen Mind (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very lucrative for each nation that competes due to Prize Money, Sponsership etc. Obviously it depends on the nation (eg England would expect to make more from sponsership that say Finland) but it is very rewarding to qualify. - Mrpaddyx

Looks like there is a prize fund after all. This article concerns the Euro2004 prize money. Sport business Basically, the maximum prize money a team could receive last time is £12million. To put this into perspective, the total prize fund for one season of the FA cup is about £9.6million. The prize money is a nice little reward for the national associations, but it's not the point of the competition- aheyfromhome 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Group D

UEFA said the best team in qualifications will be put a head of this group not Germany since the qualifications not ended till now ! ! --Max Mayr 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? F9T 19:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody prematurely added that Greece will be seeded C1 and Germany will be seeded D1. This has been removed. The seeding of each pot (apart from the hosts and Greece) will be determined by the qualifying results of 2006 World Cup and Euro 2008, so nothing is certain now. (Actually it's quite unlikely Germany will be seeded first, given their Euro 2008 qualifying results) Chanheigeorge 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The eventual seedings are a farce. With three relative minnows guaranteed of top seeding, and several other teams out of position due to the ignoring of World Cup competitive matches, we are guaranteed to lose major teams in the groups. Is there any way this can be better incorporated into the article? --MartinUK (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Portugal, Croatia, and Spain should not be in the "Winner" status for the Quarterfinals. The second place teams can still claim first on goal differential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.80.254 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the tie-breaking critera. dorftrottel (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of participating countries

What is the scale on the map for 1, 2, 3-4 etc...? Has someone cobbled this map together and forgotten to remove the editing residue? BuzzWoof (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the similar image on UEFA Euro 2004 article suggests, respective colors will be applied to countries denoting their final positions in the tournament after it is over. So far the map shows only the participating countries, though, so maybe the "key" can be removed from the image for now. Artyom (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also the islands of Guernsey and Jersey are colored red, so please change this too since they aren't participating in the tournament. 85.159.97.2 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Guernsey and Jersey are members of The Football Association, so they should be given the same coloration as England. – PeeJay 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this map is quite confusing. Can someone please add a legend explaining what the colours (and their associated numbers) mean? This could be as simple as changing it to say "red = group stage" rather than "red = 9-16" as it currently does. I only worked out what it was talking about when I read this discussion thread.

Also, what do people think of the current location? Currently it simply shows participation, but once we move further on in the competition it will show progress too. Therefore, should it be moved down the article to somewhere in the "results" section? Witty Lama 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what it stands for. Whoever has done it buggered it up though. Sweden are at least through to the next stage yet are coloured as eliminated. Maybe it would be best just to colour the teams as they are eliminated. What's the point in colouring everyone still in 5-8 when four teams will not fit in that category?

Draw between Turkey and Czech Republic

As I understand the rules, in case of a draw between Turkey and Czech Republic there will be a penalty shoot-out. If I am right, please correct this in the article. Thanks. --91.23.208.183 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, they are level on goal difference and goals scored and would remain so in the case of a draw. I am going to correct unless and until someone can explain to us why that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, according to [1] - article 7.08, page 9. DrFishcake (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkey will proceed in this case I believe, as it will have scored more goals in all its three games. Ben, Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.240.155 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I obviously made a miscount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.240.155 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't find anything about penalty kicks in uefa.com, show a source, or its probably just vandalism ← chandler 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The rules are written on Page 9 in this document: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf Could someone please update the article accordingly?Halukakin (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are already on the article. The bit about Czech Rep having an advantage if it was a draw was my error, and I was on my way back to correct it quickly, but got caught in a edit clash, by which time it was done. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to specify that there will be no extra-time, they'll go straight to penalty kicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.11.227 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how can this be that you are writing on Page 9 of the UEFA regulations, penalty kicks would decide. No such thing there, instead, article 7.07f clearly applies, where the "coefficient" points/matches from qualifiers for Euro and last World Cup, would decide (which is better for the Czechs). I am new to Wikipedia so I don't dare to edit the article, someone please confirm and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.84.202 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just in case the teams are not playing one another in the deciding match. --Tone 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page 9 as defined in the table of contents, not page 9 as defined by the PDF document. DrFishcake (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On June 12 (Yesterday), UEFA wrote an article stating that the 2 teams could go to a shootout. Here is the article. The opening sentence of the article states "If Turkey and the Czech Republic draw their final Group A match in Geneva on Sunday, second place and a quarter-final berth will be decided on penalties." Kingjeff (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

Why is Portugal listed as the winner of group A when technically they can still end as runner-up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.141.220 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they can't finish as runners-up. The first tie-breaker for teams tied on points is head-to-head results, and since Portugal has already beaten the two teams that they can tie on points with, they have won the group. – PeeJay 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read article 7.07 in this document: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf Head to head results determine the standing. Halukakin (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize Switzerland are predetermined to finish bottom of the group. I thought (as the way things stand) if Switzerland beat Portugal by enough goals to give them a higher goal difference against either losing side from the Czech / Turkey game then that would position Switzerland above the losing side from the Czech / Turkey game. I am only saying this as at the moment it appears that Switzerland are ultimately going to finish bottom of the group, that is slightly misleading. I know the Swiss will probably lose to Portugal. But stranger things have happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinster2001 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the first tie-breaker for teams tied on points is head-to-head results. Switzerland can only get tied on points with either Czech Republic or Turkey (the losing side of Czechia-Turkey match). But since Switzerland has already lost to both, they will ultimately end up at the bottom of the group no matter by how many goals they might be able to beat Portugal.  ARTYOM  01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal and Croatia have ALREADY been determined as group WINNERS and NOT runners up of their groups - for the following reason (this has already been stated on the page): "Should two teams from the same group finish with an equal number of points, they will be ranked based on the following criteria:" 'Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question' This takes PRIORITY over: 'Goal difference in all group matches;'" OmgReaverDrop (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who scored? At what minutes?

need these info: 1) goal scorers of each match 2) when he score the goal, in minutes 3) list of all the goal scorers sorted according to how many goals scored

Well part 3 is done. Parts 1 and 2 are done for the first few but it seems to have tailed off for the more recent matches. TheTrojanHought (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Look in the group articles for that information. Group A Group B Group C Group D -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Group B

How come Croatia is highlisghted in Green? Croatia is not 100% sure be in quarterfinals yet......

If Poland wins against Austria...... Then next Monday, Poland wins against Croatia, Germany wins against Austria, that means the 3 teams all have 6 points and thus have to count goal difference among the 3 teams!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doraemon2151 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be changed. Any of the group B teams can still be in the quarter finals, there is nothing confirmed as yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.121.128 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Poland beats Austria, going into the next game, Germany will be +1 between the three teams, Croatia will also be +1 and Poland will be -2. If the scenario plays out - Germany and Poland winning the third games, the worst Germany can be is +1 and the best Croatia can be is +0. So if the three-way-tie scenario plays out, Germany would definitely qualify, and Croatia would qualify if they lose by 1 and Poland would qualify if they win by 2 or more.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be over-pedantic, but Croatia aren't certain to finish top yet. If they lose (although highly unlikely) to Poland, and Germany win against Austria, the'll finish 2nd. So placing them in the knockout section is a bit misleading, isn't it? Ignore that. I've read the rules before, but I just plumb forgot. I'll blame it on doing nightshift.Chrisriddell1987 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Croatia has won over Germany. ← chandler 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia is NOT yet the Group winner: if we have the following scenario:

Poland beats Croatia 0:2 and Germany beats Austria 2:0. Germany will be the group winner with a goal difference of +2 and Croatia ends up with 0 GD. This is unlikely to happen but there are still chances so you shouldn't put Croatia as group winners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 21:25, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The first criteria then is a match between Croatia and Germany that Croatia won. --Tone 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the time stamps: it was true when he said it:@) Kevin McE (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, he said it at 21:25 UTC. For some reason (presumably timezone issues) the guy signing it for him wrote 17:25. Doesn't matter much now either way... -- Jao (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. When I put in the unsigned tag I forgot to convert to UTC. I have adjusted the time on his comment to show in UTC. --Scottmsg (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited that right after the Austria-Poland match ended but the only thing here is that Croatia is NOT yet the group winner? How can they be? Rules changed or something? If Germany beats Austria with over 2 goals and 0 against and Croatia loses then Germany could be the group winner. Why are you putting Croatia as the definite group winners? Just because is not likely that Poland might beat Croatia? If its because of that then this article is not neutral at all Tony0106 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a UEFA competition, not FIFA, therefore goal differential is NOT the first tiebreaker, head to head results is. Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship. Read section 7.07 on page 9. --Scottmsg (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the qualification now says: "Austria need to score 2 goals more than Poland to qualify" in the last line, as they now have the same goal scored, if their goal difference is ultimately the same, Austria just need 1 more goal to beat Poland in the ranking. Also the coefficients for the two teams should be in favor of Poland am I correct? May be we should include this determined decision in case everything is a draw. Ivan (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The qualifier for that was "If Poland's winning margin is one greater than Austria's...". If that is the case, then the GD will still be equal but the GF will not be equal (favoring Poland). --Sesameball^Talk 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that if Poland win 2-0 and Austria would need to win 4-3 to advance. But it would seem that 3-2 would also be good enough for Austria to advance (both teams would have 0 GD, but Austria would have 4 GF to Poland's 3). --Scottmsg (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks right. Too much situational dependency on a lot of these hypotheticals. --Sesameball^Talk 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right: my miscalculation. Sorry. To clarify:

If they both win by the same margin (e.g. both games 1-0, or one match 1-0, the other 2-1), then Austria will go through on goal difference.

If Poland's margin of victory is one greater than Austria's (e.g. Pol 2-0 Cro and Aus 1-0 Ger), then goal difference is equal, and the next criterion is goals scored. At present this is equal.

If Poland's margin of victory is one greater than Austria's, and Austria score the same number of goals as Poland (e.g. Pol 2-0 Cro and Aus 2-1 Ger), then the two sides have identical records of points, goals scored, and goal difference, and the next criterion is co-efficient of results from 2006 and 2008 qualifiers. Poland lead this (52 points from 24 games, compared to 15 points from 10). Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Music

There is no mention of Seven Nation Army by White Stripes, which is played whilst the teams approach the pitch from the tunnel, in the music section. Should there be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.23.219 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on the miscellany page (that hasn't started yet, but never mind). I don't think it's significant enough for the main article. DrFishcake (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Which song is played after each scored goal? Libido (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like a song called "Samba e Gol", but I could be wrong. – PeeJay 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellini - Samba De Janeiro Youtube of it ← chandler 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Though in this video it's called Gol instead MySpace, and they sing Gol instead of Janeiro... don't know which one is the original or so... Just think it was created for the World Cup in france 98 ← chandler 05:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add this to the "Music" section? --141.3.48.218 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What for? It's just incidental music. Unlike the songs recorded by Shaggy and Enrique Iglesias, "Samba De Janeiro" and "Seven Nation Army" were not recorded specifically for the tournament and hence they have no special significance to the tournament. – PeeJay 08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistics missing!

Hey all!

A few versions ago there were some interesting statistics, like biggest goal difference, fastest/latest goal, and so on. Can we please add that again?

kR — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be nice to have: First, Fastest, Latest, Last goals, and some other statistics. There are alot of nice statistics on uefa.com that could be compiled, maybe a UEFA Euro 2008 statistics, or include detailed statistics from the matches. ← chandler 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But be careful to include just relevant statistics and not just some trivial. (hard to say where is the border but let us trust football experts :-) ) --Tone 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well statistics in football has always seem to be spares... If you compare it to American sports and their statistics. There are at least much here, and I think much of it is interesting ← chandler 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quarter finals

I think that putting the countries like Croatia and Spain in the quarter finals tables like they are now is going too fast, they sure are qualified, but I think there are scenarios where they don't win their group and are runners up. Hektor (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia has won its group, as they have already beaten the only team that can draw level on points with them (Germany). – PeeJay 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I was mistaken, see rules about direct confrontation I don't agree with you PeeJay2K3, if Croatia loses it's match against Poland & Germany wins and scores enough goals it will become first of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.194.194 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, this has been repeated so much! The thing that decides the top is the results between the two teams, NOT goal difference! Pn57 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Goalscorers

You may use this tablo:

Line	Name	National Team	Club	Goal	Played Time
1	David Villa	Spain	Valencia	3	90'
	Lukas Podolski	Germany	Bayern München		180'
2	Raul Meireles	Portugal	FC Porto	1	7'
	Quaresma	Portugal	FC Porto		10'
	Svěrkoš	Czech Republic	Baník Ostrava		34'
	Fàbregas	Spain	Arsenal		36'
	Vastić	Austria	LASK Linz		55'
	Semih	Turkey	Fenerbahçe		58'
	van Nistelrooy	Netherlands	Real Madrid		70'
	Ibrahimović	Sweden	Inter Milan		71'
	Arda	Turkey	Galatasaray		90'
	Sneijder	Netherlands	Real Madrid		90'
	van Bronckhorst	Netherlands	Feyenoord		90'
	Pavlyuchenko	Russia	Spartak Moscow		90'
	Hansson	Sweden	Rennes		90'
	Hakan Yakın	Switzerland	BSC Young Boys		121'
	Guerreiro	Poland	Legia Warsaw		129'
	Olić	Croatia	Hamburg		155'
	Mutu	Romania	Fiorentina		166'
	Srna	Croatia	Shakhtar Donetsk		170'
	Sionko	Czech Republic	F.C. Copenhagen		173'
	Luka Modrić	Croatia	Tottenham		180'
	C. Ronaldo	Portugal	Manchester United		180'
	Pepe	Portugal	Real Madrid		180'
	Deco	Portugal	Barcelona		180'
	Panucci	Italy	AS Roma		180'

PS: It was edited after Italy-Romania match.--Mdmdmd55 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The way currently used uses the space better, and is what is used for all other world cups and euro's, see 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Scorers 2002_FIFA_World_Cup#Scorers UEFA_Euro_2004#Goalscorers UEFA_Euro_2000#Goalscorers, this sort of list will become too long ← chandler 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chandler. We could perhaps use a similar table in the UEFA Euro 2008 goalscorers article though. – PeeJay 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Holland only need one more win

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2008#Group_C,

"If Netherlands avoid defeat in both remaining matches, they are assured of reaching the quarter-finals."

should be:

"If Netherlands avoid defeat against France, they are assured of reaching the quarter-finals." Ashleyriot uk (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. If they avoid defeat by drawing with France, and then lose to Romania while France beat Italy, they will be eliminated. It is true to say that one win would assure them of progressing, and that if that win were against France, they will be sure of winning the group. But while only half the games in the group have been played, we should not try to list every permutation, especially as many would be eliminated in less than 1 1/2 hours.

Why not just change it to "Holland qualify if they beat France" then? TheTrojanHought (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to that ← chandler 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Group C possibilities

The confusing scenario is if Netherlands win and the France-Italy game is a draw.

If it is a score draw, France n-n Italy, then Italy go through, because they will have scored n+1, France will have scored n, and Romania will have 1 goal.

If it is a goal-less draw, then, as I understand it, France will be out, because they will not have scored in games between the three "joint runners-up", while Italy and Romania will have scored once each. The remaining criteria, overall goal difference and goals scored, and co-efficient, will only be between Italy and Romania. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup it's exactly as what u wrote. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it in the apparently vain hope of avoiding lots of people questioning the logic behind it. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If Netherlands beat Romania, and France and Italy play out a score draw, then Italy will reach the quarter finals

Why would that be the case ?? Wouldn't the goal difference be pertinent ? E.g.

• RO 0 v NL 2
• FR 1 v IT 1

Then the goal differences will be

• RO -2
• FR -3
• IT -3

I.e. : Romania progresses. Passportguy (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I follow, why would Italy go through if there is a draw between France and Italy? They both have the same goal difference. In fact if Romania looses 3-0 and France Italy is 0-0 then all 3 teams would have the exact same goal difference.

How do you know who go through then? FFMG (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not look at the goal differences first, and instead have to look at the head-to-head records. Hence in this case, 3 teams would have the same number of points, and thus only the matches involving Netherlands are removed. And there u go. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious here, but why would France be dropped if Italy and France have the same number of goals? they would have both lost to the same team and both drawn to Romania.

Would it be because Italy scored against Romania? FFMG (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Note the current relevant results. Romania 0 France 0. Italy 1 Romania 1. France X Italy X (where X is to be determined in the remaining game). All the results vs Netherlands are ignored if all the three teams have the same number of points. Kiwi8 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I undertand the reasoning behind this now, but can anyone confirm that the "Goals scored in matches between the teams in question" is applicable if more than 2 teams are in contention ? Passportguy (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it applies! Kiwi8 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It can only apply if more than 2 teams are otherwise tied. If only two teams were tied, and the points in the match between them were the same, that would be because they drew against each other. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, ppl need to start reading the tie-breakers before commenting. It will explain everything Kevin McE said. ← chandler 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What u said is damn rite! :) Kiwi8 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, sorry if this seem to have annoyed you so much. FFMG (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"And Romania loses 3-0 or by more than 3 goals, Italy advances" (and FR v IT 0:0)

Ok. let's say Romania looses 0:3, then

• Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 2
• Italy : 2
• Romania : 2

• Goal difference in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 0
• Italy : 0
• Romania : 0

• Goals scored in matches between the teams in question;

• France : 0:0
• Italy : 1:1
• Romania : 1:1

Goal difference in all group matches;

• Italy : -3
• Romania : -3

Goals scored in all group matches;

• Italy : 1
• Romania : 1

So why does Italy advance ?? Passportguy (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because as I said at the top of this section the next criterion is coefficient, and Italy's is superior. Kevin McE (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Italy's qualification record is better than Romania's. Kiwi8 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been adopted by a parrot  :@) .Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

if it goes ITA 0:0 FRA and NED 3:0 ROM, then we draw lots between ITA and ROM ...... fun times 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Italy has a better coefficient than Romania ← chandler 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Qualification

• France will advance if
  • they beat Italy, while Romania fail to beat the Netherlands.
• Italy will advance if
  • they beat France, while Romania fail to beat the Netherlands,
  • or they play a 1–1 or higher draw with France, while Romania lose to the Netherlands,
  • or they play a 0–0 draw with France, while Romania lose to the Netherlands with 0–3 or a margin of 4 goals or more.
• Romania will advance if
  • they beat the Netherlands,
  • or draw with the Netherlands, while Italy and France draw,
  • or lose to the Netherlands by a margin of 3 goals or less, but not 0–3, while Italy and France play a 0–0 draw.

It shorts it down, I tried to make the sentences as short as possible... Not totally satisfied with the last Romania sentence though... And just so everyone can check through it so no mistakes have slipped in. ← chandler 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't ITA and ROM have the same coefficient from qualifying (29 pts in 12 matches)? Goal difference doesn't count in the qual coefficient. Then I suppose it goes to fair play standings, not drawing lots..... my bad. 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I failed to notice that for some reason, WC2006 qual counts toward the coefficient.... horribly unfair to ROM in my opinion. Let's hope it doesn't get that far 142.73.16.134 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be even more unfair to Austria and Switzerland if it didn't! Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably in that case they would just go straight to the fair play stats. Why should WC2006 play into this totally separate tournament at all? Some of those matches were played almost 4 years ago. They might as well go by the FIFA rankings. A team should be judged by their performance in the current tournament, not by other historical statistics. Just my opinion, like I said I hope we don't get to that. 142.73.16.134 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying from group stage changed method

Is it just me or are the tie-breaker rules for Euro2008 different to the norm? Isn't it usually the case that in the event of two teams with equal points at the end of the group stage then the first deciding factor is the goal difference? In this championship the deciding factor seems to be the score in the game between those two teams.

If this is indeed new/unique/different then could we place a paragraph in the relevant section of the article explaining the significance of the change? A lot of the edits to the Euro2008 article are mistaken clarifications to which team one/lost a group. I think a lot of the hassle would be avoided if we described this different scoring system more overtly. Witty Lama 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of confusion about this rule change. Goal difference has indeed been demoted as a criterion, now being less relevant than the matches between the tied teams. I've attempted to clarify this here. dorftrottel (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New? No they were used in Euro 2004 as well as the qualifications... The only new thing is the penalty kick part. It was probably used in Euro 2000 as well, even though no situation there showed it self... Though it was used in the Qualification for the Euro 2000 as can be seen here Denmark/Switzerland. Used in 96 look here ← chandler 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then clarify it in the article. Obviously, a lot of people have difficulties understanding this ruling. dorftrottel (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear in the article already. Number of points earned in matches between the teams in question; Goal difference in matches between the teams in question; Goals scored in matches between the teams in question; Goal difference in all group matches; If ppl don't get that, I don't know how you should explain it. As I showed the current first tie-breaker have been in place for over 10 years in this competition, how it could have gone past anyone (especially after what happend in Group C in 2004) is beyond me. ← chandler 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just take a quick glance at the number of people (and the article is currently sprotected, mind you) who have apparent difficulties understanding this. That's why I believe a concise footnote may clear this up, but you removed the footnote instead of improving it according to the best of your knowledge. dorftrottel (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If they don't read the tie-breakers, you think they'd read the footnotes in the tie-breakers? ← chandler 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a shot. Why not? dorftrottel (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, if they don't read the tie-breakers, how would they find the footnotes in it... One thing you might do though is draw attention to them by bold and having # instead of *'s infront so its 100% clear that they are ordered by importance ← chandler 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you assume that people don't read them as opposed to not understanding them? dorftrottel (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is VERY clearly stated. ← chandler 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, by the number of people inserting the same incorrect information, the tie-breaker criteria are not clear enough. That you and I understand them is not a factor here. What I think is needed is just a sentence or two saying that these tie-breaker rules are different to the "normal" rules in x and y manner. (I don't understand the nuance of the difference enough to trust myself writing this.) We do not need to restate the tie-breaker rules but we DO need to explain how they are different. Witty Lama 07:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT different, as I've shown they have been used in the European championship for at least 12 years. They are clear and people just don't read them... if they did they'd see that the top criteria is head-to-head record, it is VERY clear. ← chandler 07:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sometimes, inserting hidden editing notices can be useful. Maybe something along the lines of

<!--

 *****************************************
 *                                       *
 * PLEASE READ THE TIE-BREAKING CRITERIA *
 * BEFORE EDITING THIS SECTION.          *
 *                                       *
 *****************************************

-->

? dorftrottel (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ill insert it at every line of the article... or somethng like that. ← chandler 07:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Chandler - stop being so agressive, it's not helping. We all agree there is a problem with a large number of people misunderstanding the rules. What we are trying to do is fix this problem. Sarcastic comments to every suggestion made is not productive.

So, the two options that have been raised so far are 1) a footnote explaining that this is different to what people would normally expect, or 2) to place some hidden text in the edit page. I would suggest 3) to place one or two sentences in the tie-breaker rules section describing how this is different from what people would normally expect (and perhaps the reasons for it being different). Whilst I do agree with you that it is not different to the recent editions of Euro championships, it is different enough from the standard to warrant qualification IMO. Witty Lama 08:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not different than the "norm", ts used for qualification for the world cup and euro. I'm much against adding that line you added, as it's like even if they would read the tie-breakers they still wouldn't believe them. ← chandler 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed a one sentence explanation in tie-breaking criteria section that says:

"These criteria are different from the norm, though not different from previous European championships, in that the goal difference is not as important as the head to head record between the tied teams."

What does everyone think? Witty Lama 08:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even at the risk of people not reading it, it or something like it should nevertheless be in the article, for those who read and have understandable difficulties understanding it, seeing as the goal difference used to (and still does in other tournaments) weigh more than head to head record. I think it's fine. dorftrottel (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would vehemently oppose such an addition, because it is not encyclopaedic information, which is what an encyclopaedia should include: it is rather a highlighting comment for those either unable to understand clear criteria, or unwilling to read them carefully. There is no one established "norm" to differ from, and to suggest that there is assumes familiarity with one tournament over another. Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, your concern about the word 'norm' - although I'm not sure how to better phrase it at the moment. Of more importance however is that I contest that this phrase is indeed encyclopedic - It is a direct explication of relevant information - that that information is presented in point form in the previous paragraph. We repeat information all the time in Wikipedia articles (in this very article we show who has gotten into the quarter finals three times or so, but in different ways) - so as to elucidate different aspects. In this case we have the point form to show the criteria-by-criteria breakdown, whereas this expands on a particular aspect in prose form. Witty Lama 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the phrase in the article and changed the word "norm" with "other championships". Is this a better wording? Any suggestions for improvement? Witty Lama 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should come up with sources regarding the changing of the rules. It used to be different, which also explains why so many assume that goal difference still outweighs head to head record. dorftrottel (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know myself! Witty Lama 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It has already been shown in this thread that it is not a recent change (although the possibility of penalties in the group stage is new at this level). The authoritative source for the criteria is clearly posted. As regards Wittl Lama's search for phrasing, I have drawn attention to this priority at the top of the tie breaker section. Although we repeat info, we normally do so to present it in different formats, not to account for editors with a lack of concentration or comprehension. Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - I'm very happy with the new wording and placement. I think this is now clear, informative and explains a commonly held misconception. Well done all. Witty Lama 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The third possibility for Romania says: "Romania will advance if they lose to the Netherlands by a margin of 3 goals or less, but not 0–3, while Italy and France play a 0–0 draw." What if the sentence changed to "if they lose to the Netherlands by a difference of 2 goals at most, while Italy and France play a 0-0 draw." Hovic (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not an option, as Romania can still lose 4–1 and still qualify. – PeeJay 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Group D

I see someone has already highlighted Spain as group D winners after their win over Sweden. However, we should wait for the Greece-Russia game, because in case Greece beats both Russia tonight and then Spain in the last round, they might end up as group winners (highly unlikely, but it's a possibility editors have to consider). Timbouctou (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right... Still ppl don't seem to read the tie-breakers ← chandler 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't green highlighting mean one of the top two? Spain can't be 3rd or 4th anymore, right? Mtcv (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can, If Greece beat Russia and then Spain by 2-0 or a bigger margin, Greece and Sweden progress (if Sweden beat russia) ← chandler 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Spain has qualified already. The lowest they can finish is 2nd now. – PeeJay 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Greece beating russia and Spain by 2-0 while Sweden beat russia...

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Sweden	2	1	0	1	3	2	+1	3
Greece	2	1	0	1	2	2	0	3
Spain	2	1	0	1	2	3	−1	3

← chandler 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain has beaten Sweden in direct confrontation, so they will be above Sweden if they both end up with the same number of points, regardless of goal difference. EDIT: I was incorrect, I believe. 62.163.203.43 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

True, however, think of it this way. Spain will be ahead of Sweden in this scenario, however, Greece would be ahead of Spain if they defeat them, but then Sweden would be ahead of Greece because Sweden won the match between those two, but Spain beat Sweden so they would be ahead, and so on and so forth. Because of this, the next tie breaker is goal differential. – Nurmsook! (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If Spain and Sweden were the only two teams level on points, then Spain would finish above Sweden. However, if another team was level on points with those two, then the results involving that other team would have to be taken into account too. – PeeJay 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

quote: Switzerland cannot qualify for the quarter finals and will finish bottom of the group.

if either Czech Rep or Turkey lose at two goals or more difference, and Switzerland wins their game (unlikely, but hey), Switzerland will be third in the group, and the loser between the two afore mentioned teams will be at the bottom.

Just my 2 cents.

164.107.156.41 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one who havent read the tie-break criteria... ← chandler 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, fact beats out opinion. Switzerland has lost to both the Czech Republic and Turkey, teams that currently have 3 points. The most points that Switzerland can gain is 3, and the first tie breaker is head-to-head. Therefore, Switzerland cannot finish higher than fourth. – Nurmsook! (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Crushed and humiliated :) Thanks or clearing it up (every time they come up with new rules, bah) - 69.81.75.17 (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal, Croatia, and Netherlands

Can we add a (A1), (B1), and (C1) next to those teams in the group tables? I get that the green indicates that they have secured a place in the next round, but the fact is that each of those teams have secured the top spot in the group, so I think this added parenthetical will clarify that they have clinched that spot. I know it is confirmed in the bracket just below that, but I thought there would be no harm in making it extra clear. Just a thought. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain it's entirely necessary, but I wouldn't revert if someone decided to put it in. Of course, it should probably be removed when all the games are played. – PeeJay 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at the knockout stage you see they have won the group... Don't think it would look nice with (A1) etc in the table. ← chandler 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, looking at the bracket below will clarify. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Qualification Seeding

• UEFA came under heavy criticism from Raymond Domenech, manager of France, who was not satisfied with his team's position in the draw [1] and was also in favour of having 2006 FIFA World Cup winners Italy as top seed. On November 22, 2007, Giorgio Marchetti, UEFA's professional football director announced a review of the coefficient ranking system is under way for future EURO competitions.

Refereeing Decision Controversies

• In the Netherlands' opening Group C match against Italy, Ruud van Nistelrooy scored the Oranje's first goal from a seemingly offside position. The incident occurred in the 26th minute when van Nistelrooy stuck out a foot to divert Wesley Sneijder's shot into the net, with only Gianluigi Buffon closer to the goal line after defender Christian Panucci had been bundled out of play (by Italian keeper Buffon). However, UEFA later confirmed that since Panucci had left the field of play without the referee's permission, he was deemed to be still active and therefore playing van Nistelrooy onside, meaning the goal was awarded correctly.

• English official Howard Webb caused controversy on June 12, 2008 by awarding a 90th minute penalty to Austria in their second Group B match against Poland, which finished as 1–1 draw. He ruled that Polish defender Mariusz Lewandowski had pulled the shirt of the Austrian player Sebastian Proedl at a free-kick and Ivica Vastic scored the penalty. After the game, Poland coach Leo Beenhakker, who was still waiting for a win at a major tournament, reacted furiously to the decision, saying "It's impossible to accept but I'm working on it". Earlier in the game, Roger Guerreiro had scored for Poland from a offside position.

• During the second qualification match of both Italy and Romania, members of group C, the Italian striker Luca Toni scored by the end of the first half time bringing the Azzurri in lead. Despite being legitimate the Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo ruled out the goal. Later the same match Overbo granted the Romanian team a dubious penalty kick near the end of the match. The penalty was miraculously saved by Italian goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon. The referee Overbo admitted his mistake to the press after the match "There is nothing to discuss. I made a mistake on Toni’s goal and I said the same to the UEFA Commission". UEFA has yet to disclose any opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksky0 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What discussion are you trying to generate with this? Are you aware that this the talk page? If it is a proposal for the article, I would be against it, as what one person considers controversial, another sees as clear cut. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I had to smile at this Despite being legitimate the Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo ruled out the goal. There was, I can only assume, no chant of "Who's the bastard in the black?" Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Brilliant. I must try that one next time I go to a game! Witty Lama 02:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was buying it until "Later the same match Overbo granted the Romanian team a dubious penalty kick near the end of the match." You blew any chance of this being added. 76.71.3.130 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would give a wider overview of the subject: Euro 2008. I believe that including highly debated issues that do not solely regard the formal structure of the event would enrich the content in multiple dimensions. The above paragraphs are objective statements even if not expressed without the use of subjective vocabulary. I regard the above content as controversial, as in highly debated events for which people nurture a strong disagreement.

Some References are the following:

• Holland-Italy: Offside Goal BBC.co.uk [2] Video BBC.co.uk [3]
• Spain-Poland: Debated Panalty Decision - BBC.co.uk [4]
• Italy-Romania: Legitimate Goal Ruled Out & Inconsistent Penalty Shot - BBC.co.uk [5] Goal.com [6]

Hopefully the references on the matter are valuated as safe and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.85.88 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclarity in the tiebreakers

No, not the carelessness or lack of comprehension of all those who have been arguing the wrong case here, but a hypothetical situation for which the rules are unclear. I don't think it can now arise in this competition (certainly not if Russia retain their lead), but I'd be interested if anyone has access to a definitive answer.

Let us imagine:
Team A 2-0 Team B
Team C 2-0 Team D

Team A 3-0 Team C
Team B 0-3 Team D

Team A 1-0 Team D
Team B 2-1 Team C

Clearly A have qualified as group winners, and the other teams have 3 points each. When we go to points between the three (tiebreaker 1), they are equal, but tiebreaker 2, (goal difference between the three) eliminates team B (a 2-4 record when A's results are ignored, while the others both have 3-2).

So what happens now? Do C and D go back to step 1 to be separated (C beat D, so C would qualify as runners up), or do they continue to tiebreaker 4 (they are tied on step 3), whereby D's zero goal difference overall would earn them a quarter final place in preference to C, with a goal difference of minus 2.

Any ideas??? Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are more than two teams level on points at the end of the group, the final positions of all three teams are determined by their head-to-head results against each other. In essence, they go into a mini-group, in which only the results against each other count, and the order of the teams in that mini-group determines their order in the full group. – PeeJay 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but if 2 of the three have an identical record in the mini-group, do they form a second mini-group, or does the decision go on to the next stage? Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really confusing. As stated in the regulations, the qualifying matches clearly states "the criteria a) to d) will be reapplied..." (6.05 e), however no such "reapplying" is stated in the final group matches (7.07)Ivan (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In the qualification's It was so if there were 3 teams in a mini group, and two were still equal after all the tie-breakers a new mini group with those two would be "made", if this has changed (might have as its not specified in the tie-breakers any more) Coefficient would be the next tie-breaker? ← chandler 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Following the tiebreaking criteria in the tournament regulations, the mini-group remains, even if two teams have identical records in the head-to-head scenario, and the next ranking criterion is overall goal difference in the group. Then follows total goals scored, and then qualification coefficients and fair play records. – PeeJay 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So it would appear that if this had happened in the qualifiers, Team C would prevail, but it is not clarified for the finals. but PJ reckons that in the absence of such a specification for the finals, then Team D would go through on overall goal difference. I wonder if UEFA had issued any clarification to the teams, because there might have been enormous rows otherwise.

It is not totally far fetched, and was still a possibility after the Spain-Sweden game last night. Had Greece beaten Russia 3-0 (maybe not that likely then) and then Russia beat Sweden 2-1, we would be in exactly that situation.

Thanks for your thoughts, but I think that the answer is that there is still ambiguity in the rules. Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Prize money

The prize money should add up to 20 euros given the way it is desribed on the page. BenOCI 82 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Benjamin

I think you must have added it up incorrectly. The winning team gets €7.5 million for participating, €1 million for each win in the group stage (assuming they win all three matches, that's €3 million), €2 million for playing in the quarter-finals, €3 million for participating in the semi-finals and €7.5 million for winning the tournament. 7.5 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 7.5 = 23 – PeeJay 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Attendances

Is it just me or do the match attendances look decidedly suspect? It seems like UEFA are just putting the same attendance for each venue! – PeeJay 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds suspect, but can't it be the full capacity? ← chandler 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be, and I wouldn't be surprised, but it does look a bit odd. – PeeJay 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the full capacity of the St. Jakob Park in Basel is 42,000, but the attendances for that game have apparently only been 39,730. – PeeJay 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea but maybe its the full capacity for the Euro (for security or for press-terraces etc) ← chandler 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this press release, the full capacity of St Jakob Park is 40,000, but according to this website, which gives the capacities both normally and specifically for Euro 2008, the stadium's capacity at the tournament is 42,000. – PeeJay 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there still are these seats with some sort of blue euro 2008 logo in front of them (I think it's where the commentators and the press etc, sit) They cover almost a whole side, and if they are not counted it's reasonable that they'd take over 2,000 seats ← chandler 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, quite possible, but if those seats aren't included in the official match attendance, why would they be included in the stadium's full capacity? – PeeJay 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I think you'd have to mail UEFA to get that answer ;) ← chandler 22:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland not necessarily last!

Someone wrote Swizterland cannot qualify and will finish last; this is partly untrue. Though they cannot qualify, they can still land a third place if they beat Portugal by more than 2 goals and if Turkey lost against Czech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.199.76 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Switzerland have finished last in the group because the first tie-breaker is head-to-head results, and they have already lost to the two teams who they can finish level on points with. – PeeJay 16:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, he is just asking a question. 96.251.79.210 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To 80.77.199.76, have u seen the ranking between Czech Republic and Switzerland? Although Czech Republic had an inferior goal difference than Switzerland, they still rank above the Swiss by virtue of their 1-0 victory over the Swiss in their game. Kiwi8 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

Why should it be bottom of the group having two goals more in difference then Cech Rep.? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the tie-breaking criteria before changing or commenting on standings. The first tiebreaker is head-to-head results, not goal difference. <- you couldnt even bother to read that the top? ← chandler 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cards

Is it worth mentioning perhaps the rather large number of cards Turkey have recieved already: 10 yellow + 1 red? It is fairly important I think seeing as how they will have to field their reserve goalkeeper for the next match, and if half their players get another yellow card they will the next match too. TheTrojanHought (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it significantly incluences the forthcoming matches, it can be mentioned in the summary of the knockout stage article. --Tone 16:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be thought POV to only mention one team's disciplinary record. There is already an article on discipline at the tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some might think it was POV, but some would be wrong, especially if Turkey's disciplinary record is really that much worse than any other nation's. – PeeJay 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Facts are neutral, the decision to publish them is not necessarily so. To publish something saying that one team has "a rather large number of cards", when they have played 50% more matches than 75% of the teams they are being compared with, is at best courting controversy. There is already a table of discipline at the appropriate article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkey played one of the most competitive games of the tournament againsth the Czech Republich and picked up 4 yellow cards and 1 red card during that game. If Turkey's last game were a formality game then Turkey wouldn't have picked up any more yellow/red cards and they would have had 6 yellow cards in total during the tournament, which would have been less than Austria, Switzerland, Poland and Croatia's yellow card count.Halukakin (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ratings & reception

How about a section on TV ratings / general reception? [7], [8], [9], [10], user:Dorftrottel  16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant, you can create a paragraph on that. --Tone 16:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a sub-article on the broadcasting of it: I think it would go better in there. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna use <span> but not </span> too! ← chandler 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh chandler, you silly thing =D – PeeJay 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am silly

← chandler 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Who scored?

I think you should remake this article to look just like the others Euro articles. It has no sense to make different articles for each Group. Think about it! Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remake the other Euro articles to look like this one. What's the point in having just one article covering four groups? – PeeJay 07:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the goal should be to expand all European Championship (and World Cup) articles rather than contract them — chandler — 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, articles should not be split without a good reason. user:Dorftrottel  10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason being that, to give each European Championship article the same level of detail, there would be too much content to include in just one article, hence the split. – PeeJay 10:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding potential penalty shootout to separate Italy and France

I read that it might be possible for both sides to have to go through penalty shootout just to determine the 3rd and 4th placing, assuming Romania wins or draws, since Italy's and France's goal difference are also the same. Anyone read the same thing? Kiwi8 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a UEFA statement on goal.com, there will not be a penalty shootout between Italy and France. --Scottmsg (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also read that here. No penalties. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's very poorly stated "There is no way that France and Italy can go to a penalty shoot-out," a spokesman told BBC Sport." The fact that a draw + Romania draw/win WOULD take France Italy to pens... Now if UEFA decides that you don't shoot pens for third place, that's one thing... but the statement is just wrong and, I feel that it indicates that if Romania had been certain in 4th place and this match was for 2nd place instead of 3rd, no pen. would have been shot... Anyone get the same feel for that statement? — chandler — 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie braking criteria

5 In cases where exactly two teams are equal in all previously listed critera and play one another to a draw in their final group match, and one or both teams could qualify for the next round,[14] kicks from the penalty mark will be conducted in lieu of the remaining criteria; --This criterion for penalty kicks is not met, so continue with next --

6 Coefficient from the qualifying competitions for the 2006 FIFA World Cup and 2006/08 UEFA European Football Championship (points obtained divided by the number of matches played);

7 Fair play conduct of the teams in the group stage;

8 Drawing of lots. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the pdf says. Quoted from the pdf.

7.08 If two teams which have the same number of points, the same number of

goals scored and conceded play their last group match against each other

and are still equal at the end of that match, the ranking of the two teams in

question will be determined by kicks from the penalty mark, provided no

other teams within the group have the same number of points on completion

of all group matches. Should more than two teams have the same number of

points, the criteria listed under paragraph 7.07 a) to h) will apply.

And nowhere does it specify "if one or both teams could qualify... — chandler — 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, who cares at this point!!! The matches are just about to start, let's just see what happens :) Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has the information (and source) about penalty kicks only if the rankings have an effect (i.e. are for 1/2nd or 2/3rd) been removed? Although it's not clear in the rules, UEFA have officially clarified this to be the case, and anyway it's intuitive: since a knockout game "won" on penalties is treated as a draw, with the penalties to decide who plays next round, they're not appropriate for when neither team qualifies for the next round. I think a paragraph below the rules mentioning the late clarification is needed? 91.110.96.117 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The UEFA statement was simply that "there is no way that France and Italy can go to a penalty shoot-out". However, their regulations explicitly stated that "a penalty shoot-out would only be used to determine which team qualifies when two sides finish level on points and cannot be separated by goals scored". The official regulation reads: "If two teams which have the same number of points, the same number of goals scored and conceded, play their last group match against each other and are still equal at the end of that match, the ranking of the two teams in question will be determined by kicks from the penalty mark, provided no other teams within the group have the same number of points on completion of all group matches". Therefore, if Romania had avoided defeat to the Netherlands and France and Italy had played to a draw, France and Italy should have played a penalty shootout. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/italy/7457863.stm – PeeJay 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

The page was replaced with a page with the words "HAGGER? " repeated. I undid it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a medal or something? Some of us revert vandalism all day every day (not me, but some do), so I'll say well done to you this once, but if you're looking for praise, go write a novel. – PeeJay 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, what the fuck is going on with the article's semi-protection? Has it expired? – PeeJay 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has expired. I have semi-protected the article for one month now, it should be fine. --Tone 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, I was to return to RFPP but thought it was too soon after the last sprot. user:Dorftrottel  08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

flagicon overkill

I'd like to turn the flagicon overkill down just a notch, e.g. by reformatting at least the group match tables:

7 June 2008
Switzerland	0 – 1	Czech Republic	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
Portugal	2 – 0	Turkey	Stade de Genève, Geneva
11 June 2008
Czech Republic	1 – 3	Portugal	Stade de Genève, Geneva
Switzerland	1 – 2	Turkey	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
15 June 2008
Switzerland	2 – 0	Portugal	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
Turkey	3 – 2	Czech Republic	Stade de Genève, Geneva

Yes, (no,) comments? user:Dorftrottel  21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, per WP:FLAG, you're probably right, but it makes the info look terribly drab. – PeeJay 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Imagine 2-3 screens of white and black..it really loses "attraction" and interest by the reader. And plus with flag one can immediately "capture" the situation better...if that makes any sense. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe see both your point, but I've thought about that aspect before and imho there is so much color, it actually starts to distract from the very facts the page should present. Just my opinion though, that's why I asked for input. user:Dorftrottel  08:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't e.g. argue for removing the icons in the goalscorers list, because there they actually serve a purpose. But it's getting too much, and a flagicon right next to the name of the country is redundant and dumbs down the article. user:Dorftrottel  22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with having flags next to the countries. I think a flag goes well with a country name, and reinforces the idea of the country in the reader's mind. Plus, as stated, too much black-and-white is too plain. I like to be able to find Switzerland's results by looking for their red flag with a white cross.  PN57  22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This is a place for people to read about stuff, not look at a sea of colorful, eye-cancer inducing flagicons. user:Dorftrottel  23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The point of WP is for people to be able to find information and the flagicons allow instant recognition of teams and the information about them, thus serving the purpose of the project in a far better way than an article devoid of flagicons. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. user:Dorftrottel  18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Dorftrottel on this one. We don't use flags to decorate our articles. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about decoration. It is about the ease of finding/recognizing/obtaining information. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For that, we are better to use words. --John (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the expression "A picture is worth a thousand words?" There's no reason we cannot use both to convey information in the most effective manner possible. In fact, we're compelled to. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A flag is not a picture but a symbol. We are most definitely not compelled to use a flag every time we mention a country. See WP:MOSFLAG for more info. --John (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said anything about "every time"? We're only talking about when the country is shown in a match or in list form. In the case of the list of goalscorers, it would be inappropriate (in my opinion) to put the country's name next to the player's name, when a flagicon serves the same job but in less space and with a little more colour. Now, I'm not saying that decoration is the primary reason for putting the flagicons in, but it's definitely an added bonus. – PeeJay 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you've "missed the forrest for the trees." -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• To summarise this thread: No arguments for flagicons next to the countries' names, instead we have WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate. Can we just do this then? Pretty please? user:Dorftrottel  11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

One easy reason why we should use flags might be its easier for ppl who come here to read but dont know english... For example, Im able to go to it:Campionato europeo di calcio 2008 and see just be looking at the flags which teams there are, even if I dont understand italian. — chandler — 11:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not qualify as an argument at all. This is the English language Wikipedia. user:Dorftrottel  12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, ofc it qualifies as an argument... This is the biggest WP, and its not only ppl from English speaking countries who read or contribute here. And there's no consensus for removing these flags that I've seen, they are on ALL football articles more or less, The European championships the world cups the copa americas etc... what would {{fb}} and {{fb-rt}} be for if not to use in situations like these. — chandler — 12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, of course it is not an argument at all, please stop talking rubbish. user:Dorftrottel  17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of WP is to effectively communicate accurate, verifiable information. If flagicons do this, then we should use them. I also agree that it helps communicate to the countless individuals who inevitably end up on this page given the fact that this is the largest, best version of WP and none of the competitors speak English as a first language. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section?

Are trivia sections added after the tournament is over or could we build one up now? The first trivia I could think of is Its the first second round Russia has reached (excluding USSR records). Which goes hand in hand with Sweden being eliminated from the Group stage for the first time since Euro 2000, though this Sweden trivia might not be as notable as the Russian one. — chandler — 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we didn't have a trivia section at all. If we can work any trivia into the prose of the article, that's fine, but Wikipedia frowns on Trivia sections. – PeeJay 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Echo that. Trivia sections are horrible to maintain, attracting original research and other substandard editorial behaviour. user:Dorftrottel  08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yellow cards

Does someone know, after what stage of the tournament the yellow cards of the players are erased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.99.180 (talk • contribs)

After the quarter-finals. From UEFA.com, Yellow card directives (pdf). --Scottmsg (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

{{UEFA Euro 2008 finalists}}

Is it suppose to have the same looks {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}}? — chandler — 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, eventually. I was going to change it today, but I thought it looked pretty good with the way it showed which teams were in each group. However, I would like it to look like {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}} at the end of the tournament. – PeeJay 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want the groups intact you could do something like this... maybe with scores. (Results now are fictional.. but we all know its whats going to happen, hehe)

Template:Fb start |-

!style="background:#BFD7FF;"|

UEFA Euro 2008 finalists

Template:Fb inner start |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=4 |Netherlands (2nd Title) |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=4 |Croatia – Netherlands |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=2 width="50%"|Germany – Croatia | colspan=2 width="50%"|Netherlands – Italy |- style="text-align:center;" |width="25%"|Portugal – Germany |width="25%"|Croatia – Turkey |width="25%"|Netherlands – Russia |width="25%"|Spain – Italy |- | colspan=4 |

---

|- style="text-align:center;" |width="25%"|Group A |width="25%"|Group B |width="25%"|Group C |width="25%"|Group D |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Czech Republic |Austria |France |Greece |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Portugal |Croatia |Italy |Russia |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Switzerland |Germany |Netherlands |Spain |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Turkey |Poland |Romania |Sweden Template:Fb inner end Template:Fb end

— chandler — 22:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind discussing this here? user:Dorftrottel  22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there are more ppl here do discuss with if I'm not mistaken? — chandler — 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The template should be discussed at the template talk page. But you're right, more people will be watching this page, so I've copied the discussion to the template talk. Now that people know, please resume discussion there. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

The bracket under the "Knockout stage" section shows the exact same information as the subsections immediately below it (Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, Finals). Unless there are plans to add some prose to each of those subsections, they should be removed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same and agree that either the 'tree' diagram or the QF/SF/F match entries below should be removed to reduce redundancy. user:Dorftrottel  15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them are reduntant. The tree diagram shows a quick visual summary of the knockout stages and match entries show details such as scorers, locations and dates. This is standard format as done in just about all tournament pages. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree, there is nothing out of the ordinary here and each section provides specialized information, as said above. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So do you guys think we should keep the scorers listed in the {{footballbox}}es in the knockout stage section? – PeeJay 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do, yes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, why? We don't include them for the group stage. – PeeJay 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be in both to be honest, as well as red and yellow cards. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If we did include them for the group stage it would be ridiculously long, but I would support the principle if that weren't the case. The few extra details gives the reader basic info that they might well have come to the page to find in the first place, whereas the even more indepth detail is available in the specific knockout-round page if they want it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can't say my heart wasn't in the right place though =D – PeeJay 19:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, no 'actual arguments' have been brought to refute the simple truth that the tree diagram and the match entries contain identical information. Please argue which one you prefer, because one is going to removed. user:Dorftrottel  19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, says who? If the community decides that both should stay, then both should stay. Anyway, now that the goalscorers, referees, attendances and match times are listed, the data in the bracket and the {{footballbox}}es are no longer identical. – PeeJay 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. The bunch of more or less single-minded football fans here are hardly 'the community'. File an RfC and see for yourself. user:Dorftrottel  19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think is more qualified to decide what goes into a football-related article? Members of WikiProject Football or the guys who monitor the RfC boards who think they know a lot about everything but actually don't? The WP:FOOTBALL members, obviously. – PeeJay 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The guys who monitor the RfC boards, of course. No offence, but the average editor here is a mouth-breathing idiot and I for one do not trust their judgement at all. People who slap flagicons wherever they can, embrace ridiculous redundancy, and update the live score of matches? A bunch of idiots, who should have exactly no say in anything related to editorial discretion. Damn Dunning-Kruger effect. user:Dorftrottel  19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

At least we can read. "Nobody's disputed that they display identical information"? Try my first reply. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. user:Dorftrottel  19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that over being an elitist, beaurocratic fuckwad any day. No offence, "of course," you douchebag. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What I think is even more hillarious is that you refer to a theory that more or less proves that the fact you think you are well equipped to handle this issue means nothing, other than, of course, that you don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you think you're superior to the "mouth-breathing [idiots]" who populate this project means that more likely than not, you, in fact, are one. The simple fact that you've twice replied to reasonable criticism with some form of "That's what I'm talking about," IMHO proves that you're not well enough equipped to even engage in this discussion in the first place. Kindly keep your opinions of yourself and your peers private, and stop trying to fix what is not broken. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Grant. Took the words right out of my mouth (which I sometimes use to breathe =P ). – PeeJay 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that the goal scorers and other information has been reinstated, the sections are not redundant. At the time I made the request, however, the only information provided in both the tree and the sections was the date of the match, the team names, and the score. As long as the extra information remains, I recant the request to remove the sections. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my issue. If we're going to include goals (times and scorers), why can't we include cards (red and yellow)? Also, if we're going to include that info on the knockout rounds, why not in the group stage. My personal opinion is that if we're going to include any of that extra information we should include it for both the knockout rounds and the group stage, but I would understand if that made the article unreasonably long, and we relegated that information to the appropriate group or knockout round articles. But whatever the decision these inconsistencies need to be ironed out IMHO. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning regarding the situation is that the knockout stage is usually far and away more notable than the group stage, hence why more information is included in the main article about the knockout stage than the group stage. As for including info on red and yellow cards, they don't really have that much impact on the final score (unless the red card was given early on in the game). I wouldn't be opposed to a big table of all the yellow and red cards awarded so far, but to include that info in the footballbox templates is a bit much IMO. – PeeJay 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the fact that Turkey got through with 3 more players missing out on the semis with yellow card accumulation means it will have a significant effect on the tournament, which is what this article is about. Either way, though, as I've said before, in the group stage/knockout round articles all of that information should be included no matter what as space isn't as much of an issue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the way the information is listed in the more specific articles, I think it is best to leave it out of the tournament article. Although I stick by my suggestion of a discipline section of the article, just like the scoring section. Maybe just a link to a newly created discipline article should be included in this one, though. I dunno. Maybe a good compromise would be including only players who have missed matches due to cards (yellow or red) on the main article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One reason I've thought of about not having cards is just because it would be inconsistent with all the old articles if some articles include cards, but some don't when will you know if you stumble across a card-less match etc... Plus even if there'd be a change to include cards in all matches, I'm not sure you can find that information as easily as the goals. (for old matches escpecially) — chandler — 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discipline

I think this might have been brought up before, but even so this seems an important omission: where is the record of discipline in the article? I mean especially the impact it has had/will have on Turkey's progress through the tournament. I see no explanation of when yellow card accumulation begins and ends, and what happens when you get red carded (1 or 2 match ban), etc. I think there was talk of adding it after the tournament, but surely we can get this done relatively quickly. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking a link from the main article wouldn't be a bad idea, and including the list of players who missed matches due to accumulation wouldn't be a bad idea as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a discipline section, and included a paragraph on disciplinary procedure (plus a ref). – PeeJay 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about the two game suspension. Schweinsteiger (sp?) was only suspended for one game AFAIK. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that's a good point. I couldn't remember any red cards other than Volkan's so it's a good thing you reminded me of Schweinsteiger's. – PeeJay 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Error

Why does the final say Angola vs Morocco? 86.45.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, welcome to wikipedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

InterWiki problem

Why does this article has double language links? like 2 French links, 2 Arabic, so are other languages. Is this a matter of a template that added them links? Mohamed Magdy (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with how the table for Group A was added. The interwiki links from the Group A article were outside the noinclude range, so they were added to the main article along with the table. It should be fixed now. --Scottmsg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

look in the article semi finals june 26 is misleading

how russia will play spain in semi finals?as far i know Italy is not yet eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felisberto (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at an old version of the article. The vandalism has now been reverted. – PeeJay 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

re WP:NOT#NEWS and "live score updates"

I have clarified the section to emphasise that edits are supposed to be for future reference, i.e. that they stand the text of time. Updates do not qualify (what the score was at 23 minutes before half time is of no consequence to the final result, since it is only the score after full time - plus extra time and penalties if required - that determines the points value and goals for/against, etc.) Even where it is the 22nd minute goal of the game that decides it, this is only important at the end of the match. When reverting any such incorrect edits, please point the editor to this section and this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add this banner:

to the top of the page, as it has helped us with 2008 Major League Soccer season. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose of that template makes no sense in this situation and only confuses prospective editors. Removed. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very useful and should immediately be reinstated. 78.34.143.49 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, and until the knockout rounds started there were multiple games each day. This banner is applicable for leagues and tournaments, and if anyone is confused by the wording in the banner, then they probably shouldn't be editing this article in the first place, no? -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, but that does not mean that they are. This one, in particular, is not highly applicable to the Euro 2008 knockout stage, since there is only one match per game day now (and so editors can only really edit the results of one game). It also asks editors to update the whole page! Crazy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started, and if people were confused by that then they probably can't put their pants on in the morning, let alone access the internet. Updating the whole page means update the scorers and whatnot as well so that the page is as accurate as possible. The whole point is that people shouldn't feel like they have to rush to add inaccurate or misleading information that might not be verifiable. Goals are often reassigned or called back, and we don't need sixteen edits to the article per match adding inaccurate info, when one edit at the end of the last match will do just fine. We have enough problems reverting vandalism that we don't need a million good faith but inaccurate edits as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it is correct to say "The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started", this template was not added until after the knockout rounds had started, so as a justification for the template, it is fundamentally flawed. I would prefer not to have in-match updates, but I gave in trying to revert them during the last World Cup. They are only really a problem when people update things like scorers' lists during the match, as this leads to a danger of counting their stats twice. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a crap? So what if someone wants to update the score of a football match. People do it for tennis during the grand slams, and they did it for basketball during the NCAA tournament. They will do it again for the Olympics. What possible problems could it cause Wikipedia? What damage does it do? If you really want to help Wikipedia, which you must think stopping this does, then fight vandalism or improve an article or help out a new person. This does nothing but cause headaches and arguments. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally...someone hits the nail on the head. Honestly, this ugly orange box gives the article a massive eyesore. Sure, Wikipedia may not be a news site, but who cares. Be bold and ignore it. I think it's great that I can come here and see the score as the match progresses. Honestly, it's a football match with what...maybe four yellow cards and five goals if we're lucky??? This isn't a basketball game where the page will be updated every two seconds. It's a football game with updates needed MAYBE every ten minutes. Give me a break, this is causing more problems then solving them. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I kinda like the way it was updated so quickly. --Illythr (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CWY2190, so what if it is updated every 10 minutes?

The proposed template is ugly and does not really tell us anything. If someone wants to add it again please lets discuss it here first, it really does not help the article. I would rather see some updated live score rather than an eyesore at the top of the article for 90 minutes.

There are a lot of things to worry about, live football score is not one of them. FFMG (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, I changed that bright orange template to something more subdued. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is used on a bunch of other articles, please don't change the color because it bothers you on this article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It bothers me on every article. Changing the colour of a template is not vandalism. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal music

What's the music that plays every time a goal is scored (even during penalty shootouts)? Could this be added to the article? Neıl 龱 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Samba? --Illythr (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's called "Samba de Janeiro", IIRC. However, I don't really think it's worth mentioning in the article. If it had been specifically recorded for the tournament, like the songs by Shaggy and Enrique Iglesias were, then maybe it should be mentioned, but it's really just an incidental piece, much like "Seven Nation Army" being used when the players walk out. – PeeJay 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was made for the 98 World Cup, though I'm not sure... just remember it from there at least — chandler — 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a song called "Samba E Gol" on the 1998 World Cup soundtrack album (Music Of The World Cup: Allez! Ola! Ole!), which used the same tune. – PeeJay 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's the one they use now then? — chandler — 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Could be the same one, but I'm not sure. – PeeJay 11:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all - I don't see why this couldn't go in the article, though (ditto "Seven Nation Army") ... is it just PeeJay opposed to this? Neıl 龱 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand my position on the matter, these pieces of music are purely incidental to the tournament. Their use is just as background music, which is entirely irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article. – PeeJay 12:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One sentence would be relevant in the Music section, no? Neıl 龱 12:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's indeed Samba de Janeiro, and it's relevant information. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you can't just wait for one person to come along who supports your argument and say "Oh yeah, that's a consensus, let's add the info to the article" and leave it at that! Furthermore, "Samba E Gol" is by Bellini, not "Samba de Janeiro". Finally, I fail to see how WP:DUE supports the inclusion of this info. Please explain. – PeeJay 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Samba e Gol!" was indeed written by Bellini. As was the 2008 remix, entitled "Samba de Janeiro". Your ownership of football articles has been noticed before, PeeJay. At present, you're the only editor who believes the information shouldn't be there. If anyone else is reading this, please chip in - should one line about the music used every time a goal is scored be in the article? I feel it should (after all, I came to this article to find that out in the first place). WP:DUE relates to ensuring an article correctly reflects a neutral point of view, and is irrelevant here. Neıl 龱 11:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you only came to this article to find out the name of the song; but in five, ten, twenty years, will anyone still care what music was played when a goal was scored? In the grand scheme of things, it's hardly relevant. – PeeJay 11:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. I don't see why goal music shouldn't be included. I consider myself a new Wikipedian and as such I haven't yet read all the manuals, but I can't see why information that could be useful for future readers shouldn't be included in the article - especially if it's something that only takes a referenced sentence or two to be mentioned. As for PeeJay's ownership of the article - he deleted my list of football boots manufacturers represented at the tournament saying it's nonsense, but at the same time he deleted the list of kit manufacturers which was also submitted a few days earlier by me and which nobody complained about. Granted - maybe the boots list was too trivial (even though it seemed interesting enough for a few sports newspapers to report), but honestly - I can't see why the tournament ball deserves mentioning, while kits don't. The same could be said for goal music. I'm not into edit wars that much, and if PeeJay thinks he's the authority on notability and encylopedic value of everything - then good for him, but IMO if a piece of information related to an existing article could be useful to the reader and if it's hard to find elsewhere, it shouldn't hurt to mention. And btw yeah - precisely because it may become relevant in the grand scheme of things 20 years from now, bits like that deserve to be included in the article. Perhaps in 100 years the goal music will be a major part of every tournament, performed and composed by 22th century Mozarts and Pavarottis. Perhaps somebody will want to look up Euro 2008 and see what was it like back then, and perhaps I'd like to find out who manufactured kits for the Euro 1988 Dutch team because I want to make my own replica kit. You get the picture. Timbouctou (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 remix? Video on YouTube — chandler — 11:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a link to a copyright violation and cannot be used as source. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

......... What it proves is that the remix is not from 2008 as it's been posted 2006 — chandler — 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True, Bellini's "Samba De Janeiro" is from 1997. First, I thought this is the song that's played after the goals. I have never heard (about) "Samba E Gol". If the music is the same in both songs and the difference is only that they "sing" "Samba E Gol" instead of "Samba De Janeiro", then how do we decide which of the two is played? I personally can't make out the words in the song when they play it in the stadium. But if "Samba E Gol" has a different tune, then the song in question is certainly "Samba De Janeiro". Can anyone approve? --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Samba e gol Ive heard is just the same but with gol instead of janerio.... Now which song they play I have no idea, is it even with words and not a just instrumental version?. Samba e gol — chandler — 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just guessing it's with words, on TV I can only hear the music in the background, but that's too quiet to decide whether it's just an instrumental version or not. If it is, then it doesn't really matter which of two is played. Thank you for the link! Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the goal song have an article? If not, why not?--Les boys (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie breaking criteria section

I think that the tie breaking criteria section should be hidden in show hide box or should be moved down because its taking too much space above in group stage section. I think it would be better that when a user clicks the group stage section in contents(TOC) it will go straight to the points table other than tie breaking criteria and thats what a reader wants to know (not the editors). For users , the criteria is written in notes under each table that how the points tie has been broken. Harryroger (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP

The section UEFA_Euro_2008#Discipline contains a list of offences. Presumably this is negative information, and all those mentioned are still alive. The fact that it doesn't have any inline citations makes it a possible WP:BLP violation.

Please give the citations as soon as possible. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, you would be right. In actual fact, you're wrong. Yellow and red cards are just part of the game, and hardly "negative information". No need for citations here. – PeeJay 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Even if the material isn't negative, it still needs a source. "No need for citations here" is accepted nowhere on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you draw attention to an issue based on the fact that it may be "negative information" then state that that fact is irrelevant anyway. Smooth move. Anyway, surely the match reports from each match are citation enough? – PeeJay 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For basic information that is freely available from numerous sources (goals, cards, etc.), citations are not always necessary. However, if we were to say "Player Z elbowed the opponent's goaltender in the 78th minute but, because no officials saw the incident, Player Z was not carded", then we would be required to have a citation. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

BBc have confirmed a mojor powercut in Vienna as the cause for the 15 min blackout, i would change this but cant as its locked so... someone who can do it please do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.146.87 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Coverage Failure

The BBC went over to their radio commentary for most of this time; does anybody know if this was followed worldwide, or whether it was a pre-conceived contingency plan? And, surely there are questions to be answered as to why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)?--MartinUK (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, it was worldwide, just read the article. And for "why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)", have you seen the size and altitude of the the host nations? It's probable that Vienna is the only place that has the ability and "network" to redirect coverage worldwide (I'm not sure of that though). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment again, I was asking whether going to radio commentary when the TV signal went was a unique spur-of-the-moment thing, or something the entire world had planned. Fair point that it might not be possible to route a worldwide signal from any other location; obviously we'd have to check into what the arrangements were for World Cup 2006 in Germany for example--MartinUK (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't worldwide. Apparently Swiss and Turkish TV had their own signals that weren't directed through Vienna, so the viewers in those countries saw the entire game. German TV used the Swiss signal after a couple of minutes, so Germany did get to see Klose's goal even though the feed from Vienna was out. Fckgo (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well, the option to go on to radio commentary is possible only for televisions that have permission to reproduce radio frequencies, or that own a radio station that was at the time (possible for public national TVs like BBC, RAI or France 2) but practically impossible for all of the private televisions that where broadcasting this (like TSN). So I guess it simply depends by each of the broadcasters' access to other media and planning for "extreme occasions". Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• In Sweden the picture was lost and we had no commentary. After some minutes, we were taken over to the TV studio - but only to talk about what was happening. No radio commentary. (We lost the 2nd German goal, saw the 2nd Turkish goal from a securty camera (!) and then lost the picture for all of injury time). A shambles really. Setwisohi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I hear from a friend that, in Hong Kong, it was much the same as in Sweden. TV studio and not much more. Setwisohi (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Maybe the BBC were simply lucky or inventive.--MartinUK (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened in Sweden, ca. 22:02:00 local time it went down. ca. 22:05:30 the audio came back. ca. 22:08:30 the video came back. At this point the the commentators audio stream (not the sound from the pitch) was out of sync, audio about 1-2 seconds before the video. ca. 22:21:20 it went down. ca. 22:28:20 video came back (from a strange angle in one of the corners, can't remember if the audio and video came back at the same time.). ca. 22:35:10 it went down, this was at injury time and it never came back until after the match. (The time codes are from instant-whine @ IRC) — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TV4 couldn't go over to radio, as they don't have radio channels — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ESPN also said a power failure led to the blackout. Commentators Derek Rae and Andy Gray talked about some of the chances each side had before going back to the studio. No radio coverage was available either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.107.188 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

During the post-match press conference a EUFA official said that the signal loss was due to thunderstorms in Vienna, and that a statement will be released regarding the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.149.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why the Swiss might have had a separate feed not going through Vienna, but Turkey? And also, the BBC stated that the screens in the fan areas (vienna?) went off at 1-1 and never came back on. The BBC have public radio, which they switched to, and for a time the picture returned but they stayed with the radio commentators. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Tonight the television signal in the International Broadcast Centre was interrupted several times in the second half due to technical reasons which are currently being investigated, in particular to evaluate the impact of the violent electrical storm over Vienna at that time. The second half is being refed to the broadcasters. UEFA will communicate more information when the investigations are completed. – [11] What they've released so far, I guess — chandler — 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

According to [12] it was Swiss TV and Al-Jazeera (not necessarily the Turkish broadcaster - can someone confirm?) who kept their pictures, and the fan zone was evacuated for safety reasons, rather than simply due to loss of pictures.--MartinUK (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Polsat in Poland change to Swiss signal? Anyone knows? Because there where some problems, but all goals where shown, though the third one for Germany with commentary done from the studio in Warsaw, so audio was lost... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.87.218 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In Portugal also the signal failed but not during the goals... Aritajustino (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some explanations from Vienna:

• Yes, there was a horrible thunderstorm with heavy lightnings during this match in Vienna, but under normal circumstances this wouldn't be a problem for any professional broadcasting corporation.
• The problem seems to be, that for the EURO 2008, the UEFA has for the first time ever "monopolized" the entire TV-signal, which is produced by UEFA itself (respectively its 100% doughter UEFA Media Technologies SA) in the "International Broadcast Centre (IBC)" in Vienna (see [13], IBC). During the last weeks, already a lot of criticism was coming from the national broadcasting corporations, especially about "censorship" by UEFA (who didn't show some critical stuff - see [14], [15], [16]). Due to their contracts, all broadcasters all over the world HAVE to use this UEFA-standardized-signal during the match (they can show their own material in the break or after the game).
• And the IBC in Vienna (which is operated by the UEFA itself) seems to be not as prepared for bad weather as normal broadcasters (so maybe they didn't have a sufficient emergency power?!). We will see, what UEFA will tell us the next days ...
• The Swiss State Television SF was (as far as I know) the only broadcaster who had enough own cameras in the Basel-stadium to transmit independetly from the UEFA-cameras, as Basel is in Switzerland ... and I am quite sure that the Austrian State Television ORF will be prepared for doing the same during the last two EURO-2008-matches in Vienna, at the latest since this massive failure of IBC ;-)
• So I think, the criticism from the national broacasters (and the European Broadcasting Union) about this TV-signal-monopolization and overregulation by UEFA-control-freaks will rise, due to this unbelievable failure and lack of professionalism in the IBC (so maybe in the long run this thunderstorm made sense). By the way: Like the German TV-channel ZDF, even the Austrian State Television (ORF) used the signal from his neighbour, the Swiss-TV SF, when the UEFA-signal faded out (which was officially a breach of contract with the UEFA, but who cares when everybody wants to see the match). -- Rfortner (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the ins and outs of the thing - it was a shambles. The third biggest sporting event on the planet, the key moments of the semi-final, a global audience and then? Black out. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, there was another brief crowd invasion during the Germany-Turkey semi (presumably just one person, judging by the BBC commentary. TV shouldn't be used for political censorship and internal ego boosting. The whole thing's a disgrace and heads must roll. --90.212.117.21 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better not to show the idiots who run onto the pitch — chandler — 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe - but also maybe not. Anyway, this should be a decission taken by the free media and not by UEFA itself!

By the way: Today the UEFA had a press conference in Vienna and confirmed, that the problem was in THEIR international media center IBC, due to three "micro"-failures in the electricity which leaded in each case to a shut-down of all their image processing servers (and rebooting took some time). The press conference was held by Alexandre Fourtoy, chief of UEFA Media Technology SA. ... When UEFA trys to play broadcaster by itself, maybe UEFA should also invest some money in an Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) ;-) -- Rfortner (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The semi-final protestor was complaining at China's treatment of Tibet - which includes censorship of pro-Tibetan voices....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

8 minutes seems like a long time for it to take to restart - longer than it takes a 25-year-old ZX Spectrum to load a 48K game from cassstte.....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my recent revert, not showing protestors/disruptions/pitch invasions has been a long standing practice for a while now, in football and other sports, so any suggestion that UEFA have suddenly introduced a form of censorship in this tournament is not going to fly to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me, is that they i. took an age to reboot the thing and ii. had no back-up to switch to. I'm left with impression that the technical staff consists of one man and an 'Idiots Guide' - whilst there are clearly more highly-paid administrators than you can shake a stick at.... 90.231.2.252 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you think about it, the backup may have had to have reset aswell, fanzone all evacuated of 25,000~ fans. UEFA said they are taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again // Finns 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, but the evacuation of the Fanzone (which is located in front of the Vienna city hall) due to a heavy storm has nothing to do with the power problems International Broadcast Centre (IBC), which is located far away in the Vienna Congress Center ("Wiener Messe" [17]). Ok, the weather was bad, but the IBC (and its master control room) is located absolutely "inside" and housed by a massive building, so it was not disturbed by the storm itself. Only the lightnings caused some very short failures (milli-seconds) in the Vienna power supply - and the IBC coudn't handle this, due to technical problems with thir own Uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Every server administrator has to be aware about such short power failures during heavy lightnings, and has to take measures against it (like UPS). -- Rfortner (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre or Left

This discussion I'm about to open really doesn't regard this specific article, but it does affect all of the other one's that have a match summary:

• UEFA Euro 2008 Group A
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group B
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group C
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group D
• UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage
• UEFA Euro 2008 Final in the near future as well.

User:Twas Now recently centralized the "Man of the Match" and "Referees" fields to keep them from appearing to be on the left team. After, User:PeeJay2K3 restored the older version "to the left" because centralising looks odd, and anyone who confuses the man of the match and the match officials as being members of the left team probably should check into the nearest pre-school. I guess this ultimately comes down to a personal taste since we're dealing on how things should "appear". I personally prefer moving this to the centre, however I see the "writing" logic behind keeping them on the felt side, so I really ouldn't mind either. Opinions? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Centralised as above looks odd because they are not left justified as if they were in a middle column. If that was done, that would be fine in my opinion. Separately, I don't see the logic in separating the referee from the assistants or 4th official, either they should all be at the top, or put below. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep them left... in the center it looks, to say the least odd... It should also be noted that it is a universal format for football matches used here, which has been used at least since the last world cup when I joined wikipedia. — chandler — 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For some games, such as Croatia vs Turkey, there is sufficient space between the left team and these people to suggest they are separate—at least on my monitor & resolution. However, for Netherlands vs Russia and most other games, the separation between the left manager and the Man of the Match is smaller than the space between the MotM and the officials.

I did not say that anyone would confuse those people as members of the left team, but that the visual continuity suggests they are. I think we need to take into account graphic design, rather than accept tradition without reason. There are only two columns: left and right. This creates the impression that there are two groups of men, and that those on the left are together, and those on the right are together. By placing the MotM and the officials in the middle, between both sides, the visual cue is that these titles are independent of either side. But if you decide to keep the old way, simply for the sake of tradition, that is fine, too. I have accepted folly on Wikipedia before, and I can do it again. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Soccerball shade.svg

Is the image of the soccer ball that important when the bookings aren't listed? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that, you shouldnt talk about it here, as its not a topic that concerns this article alone, but all football articles with matches in them. Its is a set of templates which are used, with pictures, and I think the ball should be kept because it clarifies that it IS a goal and nothing else. — chandler — 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Template:Football match report templates

Match report templates

{{try}}

{{kick}}

{{Penalty miss}}

{{sin bin}}

{{blood bin}}

{{2min}}

Is the Golden Goal really necessary seeing as it doesn't happen anywhere anymore? // Finns 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is we still have the this template on articles from the golden goal era. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a way a template can be like "retired" but kept, so it doesn't get added anymore? // Finns 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we need to add it to match summaries from the golden goal era? Silly suggestion, IMO. – PeeJay 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything we should add a silver goal template for that era. — chandler — 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the image for a goal scored from open play and the one for a penalty? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{goal}} is used for goals scored during the match. {{pengoal}} is used for goals scored in a penalty shootout. If a penalty is scored in normal time, we use {{goal}} thus: {{goal|25|pen.}}, which produces 25' (pen.). – PeeJay 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)