Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 Group A

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UEFA Euro 2008 Group A article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled

Hi! Portugal have not yet qualified for the quarterfinals. If Switzerland win against Turkey and later against Portugal, and the Czech Republic win against Turkey in the last match all of those three (SUI, CZE, POR) will have six points. The results among those three would be one win and one loss each, so it would count on goal difference which makes the statement that Portugal have already qualified impossible. --91.23.208.183 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) corrected--91.23.208.183 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the tiebreaker is head to head results, and POR has beat SUI and CZE. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could Portugal have beaten SUI without playing them?... He was correct in his scenario, though it did not come true ← chan dler 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal won against Switzerland by precognitive feed-forward deja vú, as should be obvious to those knowledgeable of current FIFA and UEFA Rules of Play and directives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.80.53 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that I'm stupid, but I somehow don't understand why Portugal are group winners already. What if the Swiss beat them? What in the world is "precognitive feed-forward deja vu"? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first tie breaker for teams tied on points is head-to-head results. Since Portugal already beat both of the teams that could potentially equal their points total (Czech Republic and Turkey), they would be ahead of both those teams, regardless of which one won the match between them. – Pee Jay 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it makes sense, thank you. I forgot about the head-to-head. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZE-TUR: penalty shootout?

I have heard in Czech TV yesterday that other criterium is going to be used in the case of the draw. They were talking something about point from pre-championship qualifying groups... anybody able to check this? --Ruziklan (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference (it is on the main article page). --DaveG12345 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Ruziklan (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland subs

Seeing as Switzerland didn't name their entire complement of substitutes today (they only named 10 out of a possible 12), does anyone see any merit in listing all of the named substitutes in the match lineups? – Pee Jay 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, if it was Frei who's injured and Streller who didn't want to play anymore because of the fans ← chan dler 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with me, if the full list is added for every match it will get big for just being a list of names. But, maybe that's something you can add to the page with Miscellany. --Pelotas^talk 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan red card

Why, when Volkan pushed Koller over in the box, was it not a penalty? I know the ball had already gone out for a goal kick, but if someone gets pushed over in the box and the offending player gets a red card, surely a penalty has to be given too!

It is for an off-the-ball incident, so it's not a penalty. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it should have at least been an indirect free kick. – Pee Jay 20:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too. But since it was not a penal foul, I don't think a penalty could be given. The push was not stopping the Czechs from scoring, it was just a stupid thing behind play. PN 57 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still a foul in the box though. Nevertheless, you're probably right. If I was reffing, I'd have given a penalty. Probably why I'm not a ref =D – Pee Jay 21:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given a penalty just to see what happens... Imagine the Czechs scoring. Game ends... time for... more penalties :D Would have been fun with this guy in the goal :D --Pelotas^talk 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUI over CZE

Shouldn't the table look this way? CZE has -2 and SUI 0. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Tiebreakers
Please read the tie-breaking criteria before changing or commenting on standings. The first tiebreaker is head-to-head results, not goal difference.

— chan dler — 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well add them to all group's talk articles... Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... my... god... – Pee Jay 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuncay

Is there a correct way of communicating that Tuncay Sanli played in goal at the end of Turkey vs. Czechs? Or is it better not to have it in there? PN 57 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across this circumstance before, and I doubt many other Wikipedians will have either. If it didn't pose a risk of confusing readers, I would suggest using the subon and suboff templates to communicate that Tuncay adopted Volkan's position for the last two minutes. The only other option is a footnote, IMO, attached to Tuncay's name in the lineup list. – Pee Jay 23:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it wont fuck up the align i'd put the footnote next to LM, otherwise at his name and in the Group summary (where it exist) — chan dler — 23:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of attaching the footnote to Tuncay's position in the lineup. If it doesn't make a mess of the table, we should do that. Failing that, I think next to his name would be best. – Pee Jay 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC commentary in lead

Why have we mentioned the BBC commentary of Hakan Yakin's goal in the lead section? Was the commentary really so "classic"? Doesn't seem that way to me! – Pee Jay 01:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]