Talk:Ghost goal

	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.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

ENG vs GER in the FIFA World cup

Imho the above mentioned match does not qualify as a ghost goal as there never was a controversy, whether the ball had crossed the line. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But it is being reported as such both in the UK and in the states. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we should change the meaning of the term just to match how the yellow press use it. However, it certainly should be mentioned that Lampard's goal has being referred to as a ghost goal by some. A ghost goal is a goal that is awarded which shouldn't be, not the other way around (a goal which should be but isn't). 203.214.19.18 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two types of ghost goal

A "ghost goal" can be one that is awarded without ever crossing over the goal line, and conversely, a ball that passes over the chalked line but goes unseen by the referee. There are a number of references that refer to both types as a ghost goal. Wikispan (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1966

It's quite characteristic that here, at the English Wikipedia, as opposed to the German version of Wikipedia, there is no link to what really happened at Wembley in 1966:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeXWEVXhdUo

The "goal" was no goal. Stephan 87.143.137.27 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that a long time ago, but it was taken out for no obivous reason by user:87.113.173.251. I undid that, so it's included once again. red (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought I'd say this

But I think undue weight is being given to the World Cup.

Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of this article, but I thought it was supposed to focus more heavily on blatant injustices, such as hitting the back of the net without the officials seeing, pulling the ball out from the middle of the goal having been lobbed from 50 yards, or the first goal you ever conceed for your club going four yards wide of the post? Yes, the 1966 and 2010 crimes were high profile, but the above examples were far more blatant. 1966 in particular, whilst coming in the biggest game in world football, is no different to the sort of incidents we had in every tennis or cricket final ever until the introduction of hawkeye. By contrast, it's not every day that a tennis player hits the middle of the net and wins the point, or a cricket bowler legally smashes the stumps apart without getting the batter out. --W F C-- 22:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, basically. In Germany, the term "Phantomtor" usually refers to the Bundesliga "goal" scored by Thomas Helmer in 1994 (see Phantomtor). It was a blatant error by the referees, the ball just entirely missed the goal and no-one involved would have claimed it to have been a regular goal. It also was an important goal, as it directly influenced the outcome of the competition and led to an official objection by the FIFA (because the German Football Federation had ruled a re-match). So I think we should concentrate on such incidents. Nevertheless, I'm not quite sure what to do about the "Wembley goal" – in Germany, it's easily well-known enough to justify its own article, but I'm not so sure about the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, a mere redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup Final certainly wouldn't be enough, especially considering the 2010 incident. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

There is an ongoing dispute over the lead section. (diff) Here is the original wording:

A ghost goal, also known as a phantom goal, is a term used in association football to describe a questionable decision, usually involving incertitude or controversy as to whether or not a ball crossed the goal line. A ghost goal can be awarded without the ball ever crossing the goal-line and, conversely, the term can be applied when the ball crosses the goal-line unseen by the referee.

and the new version

A ghost goal, also known as a phantom goal, is a term used in association football to describe either a goal wrongly awarded when the ball has not passed the goal line, or a goal wrongly denied which had in fact crossed the goal line.

At first glance, the newer edit does not appear significantly different to the old version. It also has the benefit of concision (being 12 words less). However, it's too stark, too black and white, describing specific instances where the ball emphatically crossed over the goal line (unseen by match officials) or where "in fact" it did not (but was awarded regardless). It omits examples where the accuracy of a decision remains unknown. For example, to this day, it is unclear whether Luis García's shot crossed the line or not, as camera angles were inconclusive. The original wording takes such uncertainties into account, noting the protest and controversy that can arise no matter the referees final decision. Garcia's shot has been dubbed a "ghost goal" by manager José Mourinho and numerous commentators, even though many other respected people believe the referee made the correct decision. — TPX 22:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been ten days without any attempt from the anon editor to engage in meaningful discussion. The new truncated lead fails to take into consideration instances where the referee or his assistant are certain of their decision, having a clear view of the incident, but where uncertainty and disagreement surrounds the outcome regardless. The first sentence of the original paragraph was more nuanced, while explicitly mentioning the controversy that surrounds such decisions. I have revert the to longstanding version, prior to 7 May. — TPX 15:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.insideworldsoccer.com/2013/03/referee-awards-phantom-goal-in-spain.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 11:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The crowd ... unsure whether the ball had crossed the line"

It was a biased crowd so were is the evidence that "The crowd and the audience of 400 million television viewers were left unsure whether the ball had crossed the line and whether the goal should have been given or not." as neutrals in the crowd and the audience (IE non-English and Germans) may have been uncertain, but English and German supporters both knew whether it had crossed the line or not.

The wording needs changing, as the majority crowd accepted the decision of referee and were convinced that it the ball had crossed the line and it was a goal. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost goal. 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:

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) 15:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Goal

December 1974. Oldham Athletic v Manchester United. A header from Ronnie Blair of Oldham beat Goalkeeper Alex Stepney and hit the angled stanchion inside the goal and bounced out again but referee TD Spencer waved play on Pablatic (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]