Talk:2007 Rugby World Cup final

A fact from 2007 Rugby World Cup final appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that South Africa and England had already played each other during pool play before meeting in the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

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

Rugby union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is it not GMT? Thats the international standard afaik 88.110.54.8 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Im guessing its not because it's signed UTC on the discussion page...since when has UTC predominated GMT? 88.110.54.8 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTC is the acronym for Coordinated Universal Time, and UTC+0 is exactly the same as GMT. Therefore, UTC+1 = British Summer Time, and UTC+2 = Central European Summer Time (which it is in France at the minute). - PeeJay 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "If South Africa win, however, they will become the second SANZAR side to win a second title, following Australia, who won in 1991 and 1999." What about New Zealand, who won in 1987? What about, for that matter, South Africa themselves, who became the third SANZAR nation to win in 1995? Alanmjohnson 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I missed the second use of the word "Second". My bad. Alanmjohnson 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article not contain a section on the controversy over Mark Cueto's clear try being disallowed, which no impartial expert could explain? 86.27.76.141 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Johnson agreed that it was not a try. This image from the video (http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard01bb7.jpg) shows his foot hitting the line pretty clearly. 59.100.78.110 22:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more clear here:

http://gary.bloxio.us/a/cueto-try/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.86.8 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for the most part, most championship matches are held on a Sunday (except for Euro soccer matches and finals series with more than 1 game) - why is this on a Saturday? --Howard the Duck 16:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Saturday evening in Paris is Sunday in Auckland, Tokyo and Sydney. It's a World Cup final, time zones outside Europe need to be considered. It's much harder for people to watch games on a Monday morning then Sunday morning. - Shudde ^talk 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that explains it. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 06:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Match Report Victor Matfield is the Man of the Match. - BlaQ PhoeniX 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have no info on the idiot who ran onto the pitch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.67 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "idiot" was the world-famous Jimmy Jump, a pitch invader from Catalonia, hence his red and gold hooped sweatshirt. - PeeJay 11:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit off topic, but there was another one. He picked up the trophy after it had been brought onto the pitch. Anyone know who, what, why or how he did it? Woodym555 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it. Guardian article. Should we not mention the security lapses in a sentence somehwere along with something about the presentations? Woodym555 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the paragraphs describing the course of the match, the narrative frequently jumps between the present and perfect tenses. Surely, as this is an encyclopedic article, the perfect tense should be used all the way through? Also, there is an error with the scoring...after Francois Steyn's successful kick at goal, the article says "to take the score to 15-9" or something to that effect. As we all (unfortunately) know, the score was 15-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.62 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help fix it. - Shudde ^talk 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - PeeJay 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the disallowing of the try was somewhat controversial at the time, it seems that since then pretty much every major news outlet has deemed the decision to be a correct one. On top of which numerous images now appear showing the boot clearly on the line http://gary.bloxio.us/a/cueto-try/ . Perhaps an extra line saying something like:

"Subsequently most news sources have voiced that they believe decision was correct".

Many things are controversial at the time but that controversy disappears as the situation is analyzed. This would seem to be one of those cases.