Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF second round

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)#Enrants|ranked]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round Group names

Hello guys, the groups for the qualification CONCACAF Second Round are "numbered" A to F and not 1 to 6, please amend all the titles of the main articles. Thanks in advance, Rafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1985 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CONCACAF's website shows different match dates: http://www.concacaf.com/page/WCQ/Schedule/0,,12813,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combinatorix (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas withdrawn?

Appears they have (all matches removed from the FIFA schedule etc). Also here. Jlsa (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belize vs Grenada

The FIFA source says 2-0 for Belize vs Grenada on September 2nd. Where does it say 3 goals? And if someone can find a source, use that one instead of the current one. Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway says 3, and articles that quote that say 3 (and they say that solely because the soccerway site - which is mirrored by CONCACAF - says so). Belize outlets are even better, they have headlines of "we won 2-0" but the article list 3 goals (see here). It is really unusual for a FIFA match report to be wrong though. Same thing happened today in the Pacific Games, OFC article said "9-0" but the actual score was 8-0 (one of the goals was offside and the OFC reporter forgot to not count it). So, who knows. Jlsa (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just keep it at 3. Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this match, and others the FIFA report and CONCACAF report differ (it is now 3-0 on both), but the third goalscorer differs between the two. What is the standard that is used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.61.25.254 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scenarios for October 7th matches

In groups A, B, D, and F teams can be eliminated on the October 7th matches because FIFA/CONCACAF scheduled the last two matches to be the a home and away tie.

In A victories by both Suriname and El Salvador will leave the standings at: El Salvador - 9 Suriname - 7 Dominican Republic - 1 Cayman Islands - 0

The best the Cayman Islands and Dominican Republic can get is 9 points (so 10 total for Dominican Republic and 9 for the Cayman Islands). In the last two matches, El Salvador and Suriname play. A victory and tie for Suriname gives them 11 points and El Salvador 10. Two ties give El Salvador 11 points. Therefore, if Suriname and El Salvador both win on October 7, the Dominican Republic and Cayman Islands will be eliminated.

In B, a victory for T&T and tie for Guyana (or the opposite) turns into group A since T&T and Guyana finish with a home and away. Victories for both is even clearer with 9 points for both and 0 for Bermuda and Barbados. (Two ties leaves a 7/7/1/1 standings with both Bermuda and Barbados able to get to 10 points and win the group)

In D, a victory for Canada and Saint Kitts and Nevis reverts to the group A scenario, eliminating Puerto Rico and St. Lucia. A victory for Canada would eliminate St. Lucia because St. Kitts and Nevis would need to beat Canada twice and leave them with a minimum of 10 points.

In F, we have the same scenario as in B with Haiti and Antigua and Barbuda playing a home and away to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.61.25.254 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in fixtures of Group C

i Checked that the fixture for 7 oct in group c is Dominica vs Panama and here some body has mentioned it Nicaragua vs Dominica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitinkumar123 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising as the info has only changed in the past day. Jlsa (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

What does it mean when FIFA "awarded" a score to a team? For instance "FIFA awarded Trinidad and Tobago a 3–0 win. The match originally ended 2–0 to Trinidad and Tobago." This is not explained very well. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually is easier because FIFA announce why the match has been awarded (see Syria v Tajikistan in the AFC qualification for an example). Here FIFA just removed information from their database and didn't give a reason for the change. This leaves us in a bind, we only know that the match was awarded (so the page notes this) but we don't know why (so we can't put a reason in). HTH Jlsa (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314091842/http://www.concacaf.com/page/WCQ/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C12813~2426184%2C00.html to http://www.concacaf.com/page/WCQ/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C12813~2426184%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]