Talk:Luis Medina Cantalejo

"with only 12 seconds remaining in injury time"

I questioned the insertion of "with only 12 seconds remaining in injury time" in the paragraph about AUS vs ITA because it appears to imply that, somehow, the time remaining in the match adds to the questionable nature of the penalty, when it doesn't and shouldn't.

I understand that it's relevant in the sense that it illustrates the importance of the call, but I wonder if there's a way to write it so it isn't open to misinterpretation. Ytny 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the controversy surrounding the dubious call was that it was made at such a time that it would obviously decide the outcome of the game. Rebecca 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but assuming that the referee made what he thought was the correct call (and there's nothing to suggest that he didn't), it would have been an even bigger controversy if he had decided to let the call go because of the time remaining.

My point is that the timing of the call is not part of the controversy or the questionability, although it's part of the significance, and that's the key difference I'm trying to point out. Just because it's more important, it doesn't make it any more controversial. If the call was controversial, it would be so whether it happened in the first minute or in stoppage time, no more, no less. The way it's writte now, it looks like the timing of the call adds to the controversy, which is not the case. Ytny 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence and I think it makes the point about the timing of the PK call without possibly misleading the reader about its significance. Also, I took out "12 seconds remaining..." since referees are in their power to keep playing past the time added and the match would not have necessarily ended at the 95' mark. Ytny 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored part of the article that existed from before the Italy/Australia match, regarding his experience in the Spanish League. I also added a reference to a similar situation with a PK from earlier this season, against Real Madrid. Finally, I tried to clean out all of the POV (saying the Australian defender was grounded seems borderline to me). So, between the new citation and the removal of the POV, I hope both sides can be happy. Neier 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the 12 seconds left thing, just highlights the level of controversy, because the general consensus was that the foul was relatively 50/50, and some ref's would not have given it while others would have. So when taking into consideration the circumstances that it is a knock-out round, and there were only 12 seconds left (considerably less after the PK was taken), it means that by awarding the PK on a 50/50 decision rather than letting it go, or instead, awarding an indirect free kick, it was tantamount to giving the game to the Italian's--Nirvana- 11:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but I can use the same logic and say that not giving the penalty would have been tantamount to giving the game to the Australians, especially if we believe some Australian fans' assertion that the Aussies would have won the match in extra time. Now, it might be 50/50 if you ask 100 referees, but to the referee calling the game, there's no such thing as a 50/50 decisioin; it's either a foul or it isn't. And since Medina apparently saw a foul, he had to call it.

And indirect free kick was not an option - it was a penal foul so it had to be a penalty kick.

So as I wrote above, if the referee decided not to make the call because there were only seconds remaining in the match, it would have been an even bigger travesty than making a mistake, because he would be willfully affecting the outcome of the match. Ytny 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The penalty had to be called. It's not the referee's fault at all. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame Neill. Hbk314 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

why is there so much literature dedicated to the ITA v AUS match

Zidane's red

The article was recently changed to say that Medina did not talk to the head official directly, which seems to contradict the cited article, and others that I've read on the web (that the communication gear was used, and it is not easy to understand how the other assistant official became involved). Is there any source for that? Neier 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luis Medina Cantalejo. 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/20060908050320/http://www.ratetheref.net/referees/view.php?Id=36 to http://www.ratetheref.net/referees/view.php?Id=36

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) 17:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)