Jump to content

Talk:Geoff Hurst

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

Untitled

[edit]

A great description of a great journey.

Disputed:

[edit]

Unlike here, In the article about 1966 FIFA World Cup it says that technology has proven without doubt that the ball did not cross the line. Someone with access to reliable information about this should help determine which one of both is correct, as it is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to have such contradictions. Also, the phrase "the debate will last forever" is saying something about the future that cannot be assured in any way, which is also unacceptable, so the phrase should be deleted or changed for "It is believed that the debate will last forever".

from http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=51603

"A forty year old argument over one of the most hotly disputed moments in football has finally been settled by modern high definition technology, according to ITN Archive Commercial Director, Chris O’Hearn. For the first time since it was shot 40 years ago the famous British Pathe colour footage of the 1966 World Cup final has been transferred into high definition video. “It didn’t cross the line,” said O’Hearn. “The footage shows the line in almost full view as the ball bounces down from the bar. It hardly crossed the line at all, and certainly didn’t cross completely as it should have done to be legitimate. I don’t know who should feel bad, England or German supporters but that’s what it shows.” The beautifully clear images have a perfect view of England’s controversial third goal by Geoff Hurst, which has been the subject of argument from the moment the Russian linesman ruled it had gone in. It put England ahead 3-2 in extra time and made the Germans chase the game, giving away the fourth goal in the dying seconds. Analysis of the goal has suffered from the limitations of video but it’s now in perfectly sharp, unblurred digital images. The footage was originally shot by British Pathe on 35mm film. While television audiences watched in black and white on the BBC, cinema newsreels were able to show the British Pathe footage in glorious Technicolor. Around 14 minutes of the final game still exists, including iconic scenes from the famous victory lap by England’s World Cup heroes. ITN Archive, which represents the British Pathe collection, has had the entire film transferred into HD ahead of the 2006 World Cup, which will be the first to be screened in high definition. The World Cup footage was taken from a 35mm camera negative, cleaned and scanned using a Spirit telecine transfer onto HDCAM SR 1080p at 24fps. Thousands of hours of newsreel footage including British Pathe, Gaumont British and British Paramount are available in HD compatible 35mm film from ITN Archive. (GB)"

  • The 1966 FIFA World Cup page currently says : "Recent digitally-enhanced footage is said to clearly illustrate that Geoff Hurst's second goal did not cross the line". That seems fair enough as the orginal source material is locked into the technology of the day, regardless of how it's processed by modern equipment. Furthermore, as I recall, there were no recordings filmed from along the goal line - so there will always be arguments about angles of view. Surely the only authority that can officially say that they are satisfied that modern technology has conclusively proven that the whole of the ball did not cross the line are FIFA.Gwladys24 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the link to "geoff Hurst - available for speaking engagements" because it is an advertisement.Davkal 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article requires some work. Couple of paragraphs refer to "Geoff" (fan write up?!) rather than "Hurst" (as would be more NPOV/encyclopedic)... Divad 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MBE

[edit]

Hurst has an MBE, but also the Sir prefix, which makes him a Knight Bachelor...doesn't it? Could anyone check anfd if so, add it to the page?Paidgenius 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I know I'm answering a question that was asked 6 years earlier however, here goes).

I could not find the appointment as an MBE in The London Gazette however when the appointment as a Knight Bachelor was published they do include post-nominal letters so as the London Gazette is the newspaper of record for the Court of St. James then Hurst has an MBE. He is Sir (because of the Knight Bachelor appointment) Geoffrey (Geoff) Charles Hurst Kt. MBE.

Karl Stephens (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In perspective

[edit]

As it currently stands this section adds noting but conjecture and misplaced comparisons and hyperbole. It should probably be deleted and rewritten to include a comparison of Geoff Hurst against fellow players of his era and an overview of his career achievements, instead of the current speculation.--Jackyd101 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leftie or rightie

[edit]

Does anyone know whether Hurst was left or right footed? and which goals were scored with which feet? My recollection is that the last one - the screamer - was scored with his left foot? ElectricRay 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have answered my own second question courtesy of youtube - the disputed second goal was scored with his right, the final goal with his left. But was he naturally a southpaw? ElectricRay 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell edited this article? It's not encyclopedic at all; the entire thing is written from the perspective of a fan of the guy so it comes off as a myspace page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.148.135 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove verifiable references

[edit]

Please don't remove valid and verifiable references. All Wikipedia requires is that you can verify the reference, just because you have to pay for a subscription to read the article doesn't mean it is unverifiable. Likewise, we can reference books, magazines, newspapers and even TV shows - should we remove these too as verifying them may involve a trip to amazon.com or a library archive? If you continue to question the authenticity of the source then please post a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 90.242.80.145 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wp:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source - and a subscription page prevents that happening!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So buy a subscription! Honestly, it doesn't mean that YOU have to be able to verify - it means that SOMEONE can verify it. There are people existing in the world who have access to that site you know... Nanonic (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it does! Perhaps you should read WP:CITE where it states under 'Why sources should be cited'.....To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor. That's ANY reader. How difficult can it be to find references that can be checked? It took me a few seconds to find replacements with Google!!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a subscription site differs from a book in this regard. If you wanted to check book references you'd most likely have to buy the book - if the book is even still in print. Confusing. --Jameboy (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Library - --Egghead06 (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every book is available in a library, and depending on where you are in the world, you might have to spend more travelling to the library than the cost of a year's subscription to one of these sites. Also, football programmes (for example) probably wouldn't appear in a library. I'm not suggesting that subscription sites should be used as sources (particularly as the when the user clicks the reference link they won't be able to see the info), merely pointing out what appears (to me) to be an anomoly. --Jameboy (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Perspective

[edit]

The article reads:

"In popular culture, a shot bouncing off the crossbar and hitting the line is referred to as a "Geoff Hurst style shot" if no goal is given, or a "Geoff Hurst style goal". An example of that is... Newcastle playing Chelsea in the Carling Cup quarter final in 2006. Obafemi Martins shot from about 35 yards, it beat Petr Cech and bounced off the bar; once again there was confusion about it. No goal was awarded. Replays later showed Martins' ball was half in."

Half in? So not in then? it's either 'in' or 'not'?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geoff Hurst. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geoff Hurst. 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) 00:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial career

[edit]

Article states:

"He travelled with England to help Greenwood at UEFA Euro 1980 and the 1982 FIFA World Cup, where England failed to make it past the group stages on both occasions"

I think this is misleading in relation to 82. At the 82 tournamnet the second phase of the tournament was a group of 3 - the only tournament this was used in. As such I think it misrepresents the performance at that tournament - in actual fact the wiki page for the tournament lists the stage as "Quarter Finals". I think this is a bit grand too - it's better to detail it as the round of 12. 2A00:23C7:1B9A:8401:3CB8:3DA1:965E:ED0F (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pubs Managed

[edit]

You are actually you are incorrect in stating he managed Royal Oak Eccleshall. He actually Managed The Sheet Anchor,Baldwin's Gate,Newcastle,Staffordshire. I know I lived in the area and I met my future husband in that pub during this period. I suggest you change the reference to Eccleshall as it is totally incorrect. Harrietsonly (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punditry

[edit]

Hurst's use of a racist simile while a BBC pundit during the 1990 World Cup is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and occasionally in the media. I suspect that when the time comes it will be mentioned in his obituary in the Guardian but not those in other newspapers. Obviously the incident reflects poorly on him, but that is not very relevant in asking whether it is significant enough to be worth mentioning in his Wiki bio article. More relevant a question is whether he did much punditry work other than the 1990 World Cup? My guess is he had none afterwards, unless at a very local/smallscale level. jnestorius(talk) 11:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoff_Hurst&oldid=1218206844"