Talk:1966 FIFA World Cup

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Football: England High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as High-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1966 FIFA World Cup was copied or moved into Ayresome Park with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Football World Cup 1966 → 1966 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather moved through apathy. Jooler 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For hursts sake u lot. The famous commentary is some of the CROWD are on the pitch.

Poor Pickles, but what has his death got to do with the article? (Pally01 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

For Hurst's sake go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/30/newsid_2644000/2644065.stm and you can hear the actual commentary which is: "some people are on the pitch..." rather than "the crowd". Either way, though, this means that the fourth goal should not have been allowed as the match should really have been halted due to the pitch invasion. Davkal 11:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the comment "1966 was a World Cup with few goals as the teams began to play much more tactically and defensively" - what is the evidence for this? The goals per match were almost the same as in the previous tournament in Chile in '62 and more than in modern tournaments. The final ended 4-2!

--203.173.42.48 00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC) G Watson gwat@optusnet.com.au[reply]

The goals per game ratio for all world cups are as follows: 1930 3.89, 1934 4.12, 1938 4.67, 1950 4, 1954 5.38, 1958 3.6, 1962 2.78, 1966 2.78, 1970 2.97, 1974 2.55, 1978 2.68, 1985 2.81, 1986 2.54, 1990 2.21, 1994 2.71, 1998 2.67, 2002 2.52, It would seem from this that the 1962 world cup was the one where the trend for fewer goals started and this trend has continued right through til 2002. Also, while checking this I corrected the group 2 table re Spain's GF, GA & GD from 2, 4, -2 to 4, 5, -1 Davkal 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"England's total of eleven goals scored in six games set a new record low for average goals per game scored by a World Cup winning team. The record stood until 1982, when it was surpassed by Italy's twelve goals in seven games; in 2010 this record was lowered again by Spain, winning the Cup with eight goals in seven games. England's total of three goals conceded also constituted a record low for average goals per game conceded by a World Cup winning team. That record stood until 1994, when it was surpassed by Brazil's three goals in seven games. Spain again lowered the record to two goals by conceding them during the group stage and then shutting out its four knockout stage opponents by 1–0 scores." - I completely dont understand this paragraph since Brasil in 1944 World Cup scored 11 goals in 7 matches (5 Romario, 3 Bebeto, 1 Branco, 1 Santos, 1 Rai) can somebody explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.162.73 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the article about Geoff Hurst it says: "The debate on Hurst's second goal will last forever. Advances in technology have never conclusively proved that the ball crossed the line, and generally support the opposite view, but Bakrahmov was insistent at the time and continued to justify his decision in decades to come until his death." However, in this article it says it is proven without doubt that the ball did not cross the line. There is a clear contradiction between both articles. Somebody with access to actual and reliable sources about that should check it and determine which one of the two articles is correct.

see http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=51603 New high definition footage shows the ball didn't cross the line. Davkal 12:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section on the final deals with the issue of England's third goal very well at present. It would probably be best, I think, to say something about the new technology immediately after the description of the goal in the main paragraph. I also don't think the line "had then goal been knocked off England would still have won" should be there. That is, in an encyclopedia we probably shouldn't go in for "what ifs". Otherwise, some German (or Scot) might write, " although had Hurst's second "goal" not been given and had play been stopped for the pitch invasion then the game would have been settled on penalties" or something.

Also, and less controversially, in the main paragraph it say's England's 3rd was scored in the 98th minute but in the summary of all the games at the bottom the time is listed as 101. I have checked another website and it says the 100th minute! Can we get this from a definitive source and amend. Davkal 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No what-ifs. Just verifiable facts please. I'll edit the article in this direction. --Guinnog 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI If it had ended 2:2 it would have been decided by "drawing lots" - perhaps tossoing a coin? However :-), since the whistle hadn't gone, the game would have been restarted after moving the crowd back, and Engalnd would still have had a second or two get get the third. -- 220.237.77.131

FYI a replay date of 19.30 BST Tuesday August 2, 1966 was announced for the event that the final finish level aet.  Slumgum T. C.   12:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, someone inserted as a definite fact that Hurst would not have scored his third goal if his second had not been allowed. This is clearly POV and unverifiable, so I removed it. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site that claims HD proves the ball definitely didn't cross the line isn't exactly a reknowned news source - Are there any articles about it from a better known source? If not then I don't think it should be in the article, considering that it's quite a large claim. KidCanary (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why teams were only awarded two points for a win in the group stages and when did this change? James Fitzy 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 points for a win only came into football fairly recently. USA 94 was the first world cup to use this format and this is mentioned in the article on that world cup. Prior to this, it was always 2 points for a win in virtually every league competition the world over (except England which had used this system since 1981) so I don't think it needs to be mentioned re every tournament/league prior to 94. We could insert links to the stub-article Three points for a win for anyone interested???Davkal 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I wasn't trying to get it added in this topic. I did try to look in other topics which may mention it but to no avail. I'll check the World Cup page James Fitzy 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ENGLANDS GROUP STAGES how come it says 2 games were played in wembley at the same time

Another victim of my Crid Freddi troubleshoot (see 1950 talk), here's what he says: "Every known source, Spanish and otherwise, credits Spain's equalizer to Pirri, who was winning his first cap - but that's not how it looks on the screen. When a Suárez cross is headed almost straight up in the air, Pirri jumps for it with Roma, but it's clearly the goalkeeper's hand that dunks it in the net like a water pop player. Not the way he'd have chosen to celebrate his 34th birthday." Mjefm 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WorldCup1966poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Bertil Loow come from ? Sweden or Belgium ?? In the group A matches report, he written as Sweden but in the list of referee he written as Belgium. Which one is correct ?? Albert (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely Swedish - just do a Google search on his name. There should also be an umlaut on the second o. I shall change it. Rbakker99 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8th July 2007, the description of England's third goal was changed from "bounced down onto the goal line then back into the field of play [...]" to "bounced down into the goalmouth just."

This latter phrase persists in the latest version (as of 23 June 2008). Am I alone in thinking this is a very clumsy phrase?

I am new to Wikipedia so I don't dare change anything that isn't clear cut. I would like to suggest changing this to:

"bounced down onto or near the goal line."

Please make the change if you agree, and if it's something that won't be shot down.

Rbakker99 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it as described. Rbakker99 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Havelange (his name isn't even spelled correctly) doesn't really deserve a mention here. He wasn't the president of FIFA in 1966, and he doesn't say how he knew the result was fixed, or how it could even be arranged. Sounds more like a "we wuz robbed" statement by a supporter who is bitter that his team didn't win.

Even if it is included, why right in the middle of the description of the final?

Rbakker99 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that he also claims the 1974 World Cup was fixed, but not 1978 (when was in charge) and not 1970 (when Brazil won). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Rbakker99 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk in a childs way so that a child will understand --87.114.157.56 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what the Simple Wikipedia is for. – PeeJay 11:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to show the venue stadiums as they were in 1966 or thereabouts? Gwladys24 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get hold of free images of the stadia as they were in 1966, then please upload them. – PeeJay 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article it said that this world cup was the start of the rivalries between England, Argentina & England, Germany this is untrue although the English would claim this the Germans have never felt that there is a rivalry between them, the Germans have always considered that the Dutch were their rivals so i had removed this part from the article. Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.49.192 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better move would have been clarify that English football supporters generally perceive a rivalry between England and Germany dating from 1966, while German supporters do not, rather than removing this true fact. Binabik80 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was one, it seems like most other world cups have one. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, 1974 was the first World Cup to have an official ball. Either that or it was the first World Cup to have a ball provided by Adidas. Either way, I don't remember hearing any reports about the 1966 World Cup having a specific official ball. – PeeJay 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1970 had the Adidas Telstar. I'll poke around if nobody knows here. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that's right: 1970. I knew it was in the 1970s anyway :D – PeeJay 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://youtube.com/watch?v=f-GYBgpHKFU
  • In 1966 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 03:55:39, 404 Not Found
  • In 1966 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-06 13:19:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re this reversal of my edit with the following suggestion: "we count seats". What does this mean? Goodison Park in 1966 did not have 55,000 seats. The stadium would have been about 3/4 standing/terracing and capacity would have been just below 70,000. Simple mathmatics tell you your suggestion does not ring true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was placed on my talk page when it should have been here.

The stated capacity of the park is 40,157.

The edit I reverted was to make it 67,000+.

So which is it? It should have a reference for a change like this. Not sure which number to use.

What my full statement was

We count seats. Many venues have standing room as well.

What this means is we need a reference is the seat count is disputed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...With respect. Point one: the stated capacity of 40,157 is TODAY, in 1966 Goodison Park was very different. I would hazzard a guess and suggest that as it is the 1966 tornament then it is the 1966 capacity that is needed. Point two: I wasn't around in 1966 so forgive me for questioning the capacity suggested (55,000) but there was an attendance during that tornament 60,000+ as shown, and 60,000+ attendances for Everton FC after the World Cup. It's a question of detail and 55,000 is incorrect.

Why does this need to be referenced? Do you reference capacities at every other stadium at every other tornament? Why single this out? I only dispute it because 55,000 is wrong and it is verified in the attendance during the tornament! It is also not 55,000 seats as Goodison Park was roughly three quarters terracing in 1966. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellas, just passing through. I'd only like to point out that this kind of disputes are hard to solve, since there doesn't seem to be any official sources to which we can rely on. Actual info is inaccurate when applied retroactively, and the possibility of finding architectural info of the 60s is I'd say almost zero. Given this, one could legitimately ask why we should discuss only Goodison Park's attendance and not also every other stadium. So if we simply precede the attendance by a "+/-", we leave the burden of proof in the one that's questioning the attendance, who'll hardly be able to give a better precision than the aproximately attendance already given. Just a thought. Don't kill me. Ipsumesse (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The capacity of every park should be referenced and references from the 1960s are easy to find. They're called newspapers and have been converted to convenient storage. If there are official match numbers, we can assume that the maximum capacity during any single match in the tournament would be capacity.

As for why Goodison Park? Because its capacity has changed since the 1960s and there is no clear indication what the correct capacity is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers aren't official sources. They're the best we've got when there's no official source, but they're not official sources. Not having official info, then, we can't assume either that the reported capacity at any match is the full capacity of any stadium, because it may quite well not be full that day. It's just the maximum capacity we know for sure it has, but not its full capacity. But over all, as I said, I think you're right in pointing this issue out. I just think that, even though what you're saying is right, we can't pursue scientific accuracy here, so we shouldn't bother too much. Ipsumesse (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers aren't official sources? That's not what WP:NEWSORG says. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect; Goodison Park is only discussed because the "capacity" on the artice - as suggested as 55,000, was wrong when there was infact a 60000 plus attendance during the tornament. That was a clear discrepency. It was just one small error. That said, in this case there should be little confusion as the capacity at Goodison Park in the late 1960's was atleast 69,000 due to subsequent league and cup attendances. The fact that the ground has changed since is not relevent as it is 1966 we are talking about here so we don't need to know today's capacity. In fact the image of GP is modern and should be replaced with a 1960's image! Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this article [1] indicates i was wrong about subsequent attendances but the most recent pre 1966 highest attendance was in 1965 at 65,940, the highest before that was in 1962 at 72,488. Post 1966 the highest was in 1967 as 64,851. They are not the official 1966 capacity but hope that helps. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not what is the number of people who can be stuffed into the facility but rather what is the actual, legal capacity. It was common practice to sell more tickets than there were seats, but we're not talking ticket capacity. If a note is added that this is tickets sold and not capacity, I'm perfectly fine with changing the number upwards. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surelly we must give the full attendance capacity as of 1966 within this article. Not number of seats today. It's by the way very sad that the terraced stands vanished. In Spain they have returned, and I guess they never really were closed in Germany. I think the Everton supporters could sing just as well as "the yellow wall" at Dortmund, if terraced sections were reopened. Throw out the hospitality spectators instead ! Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{geodata-check}}

This is Anfield, not Goodison Park

Umberto Baldi

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely disguting this behavior is tolerated on wikipedia. The video evidence clearly shows no handball ever occurred. There are tons of video edits of this game and the various aspects of it such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU which easily shows no handball occurring. repeating a lie over and over does not make a lie true, nor should wikipedia tolerate blatantly false British propaganda on this site. Any other further fairytales will likewise be removedWhatzinaname (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there was no handball does not stop someone from claiming one, and the controversy becoming notable. Did they, and was it? That is what matters. Britmax (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And furthermore, the claim you deleted from this page was about Schnellinger's handball against Uruguay, which was taken from an Argentine website. British propaganda my arse! – PeeJay 09:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine it will be recorded as banks lying about a nonexistent handball as that is the only correct summary of events. And i don't know what the hell where a source of info came from. Propaganda/lies are proaganda/lies no matter the source, and this one is easily demonstrated as so. Whatzinaname (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do realise that this was in the quarter final not the final, don't you? You seem to think that Gordon Banks was playing for Uruguay. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The handball in the quarter-finals definitely happened. The alleged handball in the final, however, is debatable as you point out. But you can't just delete sources and say "look at the video" because that's not how Wikipedia works. – PeeJay 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to keep all the fairy tales straight when dealing with English historyWhatzinaname (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly true if you "don't know what the hell where a source of info came from". Britmax (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. I'm honestly a little bit sick of the accusations of lying. If Banks believes he saw a handball, that doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. He may be mistaken, but it's not a lie just because he got it wrong. Lies have to be intentional. – PeeJay 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Banks too stupid to understand the match was recorded and he can easily view/rewind/slow mo/zoom in as much as he wants? I've seen the aged banks still making these absurd claims, not one fresh of the pitch in a hard fought game. Truth is he was looking for an excuse before the match ended, him fearing the worst. But he had his clever plan of England being robbed by a handball instead of a lackadaisical goal keeper.Whatzinaname (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not stupid. You may not have experienced this yourself, but the mind can be easily influenced when an individual feels strongly enough about a situation. In fairness to him, the video isn't exactly clear and I had to view it several times before I was sure where it had hit Schnellinger; I'm still not 100% sure of exactly where it hit him, and his hand could well have been near the ball. Either way, the video is inconclusive. Anyway, the article has been changed, so you can chill your beans now. – PeeJay 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Banks a "lackadaisical goal keeper?" Britmax (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1966 FIFA World Cup. 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/20100605084526/http://www.todoslosmundiales.com.ar/mundiales/1966inglaterra/historias/0022robo_siglo.htm to http://www.todoslosmundiales.com.ar/mundiales/1966inglaterra/historias/0022robo_siglo.htm

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) 09:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this unsourced opinionated bar room debate magnet doing in the encyclopedia anyway? Britmax (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it wasn't sourced to begin with, but it does seem to be backed up by this website. I'd like to think we could corroborate it with something a little more official, but this seems good enough for now at least. – PeeJay 21:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1966 FIFA World Cup. 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/20140224214340/http://www.fifaworldcup.webspace.virginmedia.com/1966_fifaworldcup.htm to http://www.fifaworldcup.webspace.virginmedia.com/1966_fifaworldcup.htm

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) 08:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates of several of the venues are completely wrong:

1) White City and Wembley are on top of each other.

2) Middlesbrough seems to be placed around where Liverpool is

3) Liverpool and Manchester both seem too far east

4) Sheffield is placed way too far north, it's not much above 53N (about 53°20' I think). The latitude given of nearly 55° is about right for Sunderland (Newcastle is right on 55N)

5) Sunderland seems to have Middlesbrough's position.

6) Villa Park looks about right at least.

Walshie79 (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Quarter-finals match between England and Argentina deserves an article of it's own, just like the 1986 Quarter-finals match has, I mean, it was on this match that the rivalry between Argentina and England began, there was also Rattin's controversial expulsion, and etc, why not create one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.99.95 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Havelange can't say that because he was there" that didn't stop people who weren't there in 1934 world cup to say it and this wikipedia to report it. What's the criteria? If it's England only the best of proofs, for others anything goes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.211.216 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Hurst entered the World cup stage as a replacement for Jimmy Greaves. But ended up scoring a controversial hat trick in the Final, Hurst's second goal which was bounced by the crossbar was not showed crossing the line in the highlights of the match (available in FIFA+). But the USSR linesman said that it did, Hurst scored again during extra time. The goal still remains controversial. And for experts Frenchman Kylian Mbappe is the only man to score a hat trick in the final 2001:1A10:1085:5901:58B9:A517:2FDE:F549 (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded as hat trick by Hurst. Experts, whoever they are cannot undo that - ever!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]