Jump to content

Talk:Felix Brych

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Ghost goal' match between Hoffenheim and Bayer Leverkusen will not be replayed

[edit]

(Arguably) the most controversial moment from Felix Brych's career.[1] Hurrygane (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it. SLBedit (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism for 2014 UEFA Europa League Final

[edit]

I contend that the addition of this is WP:undue. We have a referee who has been controlling games at a high level for seventeen years. By the very fact that he has reached this level means he is a very good referee. As this is a biography and he is successful at it we should present his career that way. If someone wants to add criticism they should also add the appropriate amount of positive information. Therefore highlighting a "controversial" decision in one game (which was the ARs fault anyway) using average sources (metro should not be anywhere near a blp and Soccer America -which doesn't even mention him by name- is nothing more than a blog) is the very thing Wp:blp and WP:undue are meant to prevent. If you want to put these details in Wikipedia then 2014 UEFA Europa League Final is the best place (incidentally it isn't even mentioned there currently). AIRcorn (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that controversial information about his career should be be censored because, currently, positive information isn't present in the article. It's not just "one game", as far as I know, it was his only European final. SLBedit (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the basis of WP:undue (see balancing aspects) and it is pretty much non-negotiable in a WP:blp. Instead I am suggesting that this criticism be moved to the article on the game, as it is much more due there. To include it we really need this to have had a major impact on his career apart from the stock standard complaining every ref gets after a game. There are occasions when refs have been stood down or retired after a bad game. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More sources saying or suggesting that his officiating in Europa League final was polemic: [2] (os encarnados ficaram com razões de queixa da arbitragem), [3] (Brych esteve na polémica final da Liga Europa em 2014), [4] (Then the Lisbon club were denied a stoppage-time penalty, German referee Felix Brych waving away strong Portuguese appeals after a foul on Nicolas Gaitan.) SLBedit (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the main issue though (please read WP:balancing aspects, it is very short and part of a policy). Do you have any objection to moving it to the game. It can even be expanded upon there if you so desire. AIRcorn (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is to hiding the information. SLBedit (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be better at the game article, where it is not even mentioned. And we don't ignore WP:BLP just to make a point. AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A European final is fairly notable, especially given his performance, I see no reason to remove it from the article. It is not just "one game". Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure mention that he refereed the final, but put the details (including the criticism, which is mainly directed at the officials as a whole, at game article). AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied the information to the match article.[5] Unless someone addresses the WP:balancing aspects policy which says An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. and provides better sources I will remove it from here. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it and expanded the 2014 UEFA Europa League Final article. If anything I am even more convinced that it doesn't belong here. The metro source should never be used in a BLP, or probably any other article. The Soccer America source does not even mention Brych, instead focusing on the assistant referee, and the vavel source mention is trivial at best. I have attributed Paul Gardners comments at the game article. I however refuse to use Metro as a source there. If anyone else wants to add it I won't remove it, but I will tag it as unreliable. I didn't use Vavel as I am not fluent in Portuguese. I am happy to go to a WP:rfc if there are still objections. AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored Vavel source. It's reliable and says it was a polemic match. SLBedit (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. AIRcorn (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of tax evasion

[edit]

Pinging @S.A. Julio: , could you please elaborate more on that edit of yours, specifically why you think it fits the criteria for WP:Undue ? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided did not clearly show this was a well documented incident, and at least two of the references did not seem to be reliable. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio:There has been five sources in my edit. Two of them were relatively large articles on the topic from two German newspapers. [1] [2]. As I said in my edit summary, I can add even more. You just have to type his name and "Tax Evasion" in German into Google New search query and you get numerous articles. I don't know which two out of 5 sourced did you find unreliable, please elaborate, we can throw them out and replace with other german newspaper articles. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no result regarding the tax invasion after seven years then this does appear undue. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean no result? The sources say that no result was made public Openlydialectic (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is undue weight if there is no supporting information on any outcome. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy at the 2018 WC (Serbia vs Switzerland)

[edit]

Is there a reason NOT to include the any mention of Brych's controversially not called penalty foul on Aleksandar Mitrović? Or are we just waiting for the dust to settle?

--Bodofzt (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is WP:UNDUE, they say. SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need even more reliable sources? Should we maybe try to write it down in the most neutral manner possible first, before publishing an "approved" version of that chapter? --Bodofzt (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an issue of reliable sources it is whether a minor incident from a single game in a long career deserves specific mention here. You would be better adding it to 2018 FIFA World Cup Group E#Serbia vs Switzerland as it is more due there. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is not a minor incident. This is a huge black mark against his career. He was dismissed from the world cup for making a horrible decision, despite having VAR at his disposal. I mean, he didn't see two men wrestling down the forward in the penalty box, which is bad enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.194.139 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. A mistake at a world stage, however isolated in the context of a long career, is absolutely worth mentioning. A few similar examples: Marco Antonio Rodríguez and the Suárez/Chiellini affair; Valentin Ivanov and the Battle of Nuremberg; Tofiq Bahramov and Hurst's ghost goal; Jorge Larrionda and Lampard's ghost goal; Roberto Rosetti and Tévez's offside goal. Why are we making an exception with Brych? --Bodofzt (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not always worth mentioning. Not at a BLP at least. To be mentioned here it needs to more than just the standard referee makes a decision that some people disagree with. That is just part of sport. Does this "mistake" have any effect on Brych's career? If that can be shown then it should be mentioned, otherwise it is not part of a biography. Isolated events like this are better mentioned at the article on the game itself. This is the essence of WP:BLP and WP:Undue. AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that it did have a broader impact, as he was dismissed after only officiating one match at what could have arguably been the most important tournament of his career. He even called it "a bitter disappointment" himself. Also, it was not just some people who disagreed with it; as far as I've seen, there is a consensus that it was indeed a bad decision, not just a "mistake" that "some people disagree with". The Serbian FA even issued an official complaint, and the Serbian manager compared him to a war criminal.
While I agree that your argument about career implications apply to most of the examples I cited above, with the same criterion we shoud get rid of the Suárez/Chiellini affair from Marco Rodríguez's page, whose career went rather untouched by that episode. --Bodofzt (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If his departure is directly linked to his performance then I will agree that it can be mentioned. So far it is all very circumstantial. As the tournament progresses the number of referees is going to be whittled down naturally. Is there something official saying his potentially wrong decision led to him no longer being used? AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felix_Brych&oldid=1206463736"