Talk:Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup)/Hand of God goal

Merge suggestion

It seems slightly odd that we should have two articles on goals from one match (Hand of God goal and Goal of the Century). Why not create a single article for the game under the title Argentina v England (1986)? It would provide a more detailed overview of the goals in the context of each other, and of the Falklands War. Both articles are smallish and fairly poorly referenced at the moment - one nice merged article on the game could be really good. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous comments

"England's 1-0 victory from David Beckham's penalty, especially as this contributed to Argentina's failure to qualify from the group, was seen in English quarters as part-revenge for Maradona's goal as well as the 1998 Cup."

Dear English patriots: Keep on wetting your pants about Maradona, but in all other parts of the world his goal was applauded and seen as revenge for the illegitimate 1966 Wembley "goal" by Geoff "Asshole" Hurst, the cheat of the century which resulted in England being awarded the championship they NEVER rightfully won. It is acknowleged everywhere outside Britain that England never won a major football tournament, but you sissies keep on kidding yourself.

"The Argentines celebrated while the Englishmen protested, but to no avail. At the press conference after the game, Maradona further infuriated the English by claiming the goal was scored "a little bit by the Hand of God, another bit by the head of Maradona". Decades later Maradona did admit that the ball came off his hand; however, he still maintains that it was an accident, in spite of the widely-shown video evidence clearly demonstrating otherwise."

that's a direct quote from the article, i am sorry but whoever is the sorry ass writing this trite it's both irresponsible and unacceptable to publish it. It's also idiotic. Maradona mentioned the hand of god, that, for anyone with an iq above that of a lizard means, a hand in soccer terms, he did not need to admit it later on, it's a sad fact that some british bruised ego imperialist is using his geeky keyboard to berate one of football greats. Sad sod.

Admit to what again? Oh that's right, punching the ball into the net and then having the audacity to pretend it was legitimate. What a guy! Of course in total contradiction to what you're saying (that Maradona admitted to the goal after the game) he more recently said this: "Now I feel I am able to say what I couldn't then. At the time I called it "the hand of God". Bollocks was it the hand of God, it was the hand of Diego! And it felt a little bit like pickpocketing the English." Granted he was good at football, great in fact. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a total tool. If that's the best Argentina can do for a national hero, I hope they feel disappointed in themselves. Also, I doubt your keyboard is any less geeky than whoever wrote the article. TastyCakes 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 01:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"wooly" language

Mintguy wrote: "clearly demonstrated that he touched the ball with his forearm"

That doesn't mean that it wasn't an accident, so the sentence is in effect pointless. The current UEFA rules, at least, specify that hand contact with the ball is allowed if it's accidental. The criterion in determining that, is whether the player's hands are in an unnatural position or not. In other words, if the player is leaping out towards the ball with their hands, it's not accidental; if their hands are in an ordinary position when touched by the ball, it is. --Shallot 11:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair point, although the LOTG make no specific reference to accidental handball they do use the word deliberate, so the point is conceeded. However, the phrasing of the sentence as it stood before ("that demonstrated how his hand was in an unnatural position, which is the criterium for declaring it a foul.") was confusing, particularly as there is no such word as "criterium". I think you meant "criterion". Mintguy (T) 11:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I tend to misspell that word. I'll try to phrase the sentence properly next time. :) --Shallot

Category Goals

That is a really poor choice for a category name, goals are scored in many sports and the word itself does not even imply a sporting meaning. I suggest that Football (Soccer) Goals would be better but what is the purpose of the category anyway - does it fit in a heirarchy of categories? Bob Palin 14:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admitted for the first time

There's an incoherency about the First time he admitted having scored it with the hand. If in his 2002 autobiograhpy he wrote (and I'm citing this article) "it was the hand of Diego!", then he could not possible admit it for the first time in August 2005.

I'm deleting the recently added paragraph. Mariano(t/c) 11:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC

An anonymous user put this as FAC candidate. I couldn't find any record of it on any other page (including candicacy pages) so I rolled back. Feel free to add it back if I made a mistake.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

England fans have a remarkably long memory for the detail of this goal, and a remarkably selective ability to forget a goal that was just as clearly propelled over the line by a player's hand in the case of Dennis Wise's goal in England's 1-0 win over Turkey in Izmir on 1st May 1991. Had that goal not been allowed and the match finished 0-0, Ireland would have qualified for the 1992 European Championships in Sweden in England's stead. Kevin McE 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You know the saying: In football and war... Mariano(t/c) 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"If that's the best Argentina can do for a national hero, I hope they feel disappointed in themselves" you my friend are a typical English whiner what about Paul Gascoigne he was some national hero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.193.89 (talk • contribs)

To KevinMcE

Just a couple of comments about your edits:

Incidents of players seeking to gain an advantage by breaking the laws of the game, in the hope that the referee does not see, occur in almost every match, and even goals scored by hand are not uncommon. There was little remarkable therefore in the incident 'per se', but it has notoriety derived from the importance and closeness of the match, the animosity between the two nations, and the responses of Maradona and the UK media.

This seems POV and I think it should at least be sourced. You also axed a significant portion of "Subsequent Events," what was wrong with the information there? Aplomado ^talk 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "subsequent events" info was detail about the '98 and 2002 matches, which would be appropriate in the article about the rivalry between the 2 countries (linked), but tells no-one any more about the goal in question. For example, what has Ortega's dismissal against Holland in 1998 got to do with a goal scored against other opposition 12 years earlier? The other info that was in this section (post 2002 T-shirts, Shilton's autobiog, Lineker interview) are all moved rather than deleted.

I added the paragraph about the notoriety of the event to redress the balance of a an article whose whole existence is arguably NPOV: why, out of millions of cases of players successfully deceiving referees, should this one merit an article? I would suggest that it is a (natural and understandable) bias that makes England fans reference this event so often, and draw a discrete veil over Wise's goal in Izmir a few years later (see talk page). As to sourcing it: does anybody who has ever watched a football match need verification that players will try to gain an advantage if the referee might not notice? One might as well seek a source to verify that Peter Shilton did actually play for England. And most goals that were only allowed because of a refereeing error are quickly forgotten: should I really look up an obscure one and post the reference just so that I can say that it is sourced?

I think that you would agree that the article as it was was a mess, with repeated info, pieces under inappropriate headings, journalistic rather than encyclopedic language and much that had nothing to do with either Maradona or the 1986 WC: I hope that I have improved it considerably. I don't expect it to pass without comment, but I was pretty confident that I can justify pretty much all that I did. Kevin McE 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with axing the stuff from the subsequent events section.

However, I'm not satisfied with your remarks about the other issue. You said, "I added the paragraph about the notoriety of the event to redress the balance of a an article whose whole existence is arguably NPOV: why, out of millions of cases of players successfully deceiving referees, should this one merit an article?"

Are you honestly going to suggest that this is not an infamous event in World Cup Soccer, if not the most infamous event? If you feel that England was whining about something that happens all the time, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But to suggest that it's POV to even have an article on this, I just can't imagine how you could make that claim.

"As to sourcing it: does anybody who has ever watched a football match need verification that players will try to gain an advantage if the referee might not notice?" That's not what you're claiming. The passage you've placed in the article implies that nobody really enforces handballs that much anyway so it wasn't a big deal, which definitely needs to be cited. I'm not at all confident that everyone, particularly the English, would agree with you on this matter. Adding a source would add a great deal of credibility to this addition, and if it is in fact so well known as you suggest, this shouldn't be difficult. Wikipedia requires it anyway. Aplomado ^talk 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. What bit do you think looks unsourced? --Guinnog 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the incident is infamous, but I think the article needed something to place that infamy in perspective. It is not notorious purely for what occurred, because it is something that frequently occurs: it is notable because of the responses to it, and I think that needed to be said. If you want a clatrification of the POV element, it is because of the strength of people's opinions about it that it is a famous event. I am mystified that you read what I wrote as suggesting that nobody really enforces handballs that much anyway: if you can cite the part that gives you that impression, I'll see if I can rephrase it. Kevin McE 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is that it just sounds like an Argentinian expressing sour grapes that people make such a big deal about it, thus "tainting" their win. I'm not English nor a huge soccer fan (of course, since I am a stupid American), but saying something like it's "arguably POV" to have the article in the first place kind of makes me have doubts about just how generally accepted the phrase "even goals scored by hand are not uncommon" is among fans. The paragraph seems to have a dismissive attitude toward English fans who feel they were robbed, as if you're suggesting that they have nothing to gripe about. I just want a cite to satisfy my doubts, that's all. Aplomado ^talk 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that whether England fans have anything to gripe about or not is a matter of opinion (my opinion, for what it's worth, is that they have little to gripe about, not least because England subsequently qualified for a European Championships on the basis of a hand-ball goal that they almost never refer to). The undeniable fact is that they gripe about this goal far more than any other. To have an article that does not acknowledge that it is the perception of the event, rather than the nature of it, that makes it of outstanding interest is to say that a goal that should have been disallowed is noteworthy of itself, which patently it is not. I would point out, since you have used it against me twice now, that my "arguably NPOV" comment was on the talk page, not in the article. Kevin McE 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should make this article a gripefest for England fans, I'm just saying that the claims made in the paragraph could be disputed. Aplomado ^talk 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw your point and I've toned it down a bit --Guinnog 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Aplomado ^talk 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is Aplomado's POV. Kevin McE 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I r teh l33t. Aplomado ^talk 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed ref to Viz

I've removed the reference to Viz as an example of British press reaction, because Viz is not really press as the term is usually used, and bacuse Viz calling Maradona a "stumpy Argentinian cheat" (or whatever) in my opinion does not illustrate British animosity to Maradona, it simply illustrates Viz' acerbic style of humour, referring to almost any celebrity in such terms. The article certainly could use some quotes or refs to back up the claim about British press reaction (and one would assume contemporary quotes shouldn't be hard to find), but this would not seem to be an appropriate quote to illustrate the point. --Brianpie 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction

"..but Argentina won the match 2-1 and went on to win the World Cup."

Erm, Brazil won the World Cup in 2002... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.57.69 (talk • contribs) .

If you check the paragraph, you will notice it is referring to the 1986 match, and that the poll was made on 2002. -- ReyBrujo 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Either delete reference to England winning Cup in 66

Or include reference to Argentine victory in 1986. There is so much strikingly symmetry. It should be noted so there is exact balance. Bona Fides 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent World Cup encounters

IMHO, this paragraph had nothing to do with the Mano de Dios, if someone want further reading we already have the link Main article: Argentina and England football rivalry . Therefore I proposed delete the complete section --Jor70 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point. --Mariano(t/c) 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly: I very nearly made exactly that decision yesterday. The last sentence stayed my hand, but I have now added a few words to the intro that Make the section ripe for deletion. Kevin McE 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

'Hodges'

The diagram is helpful, but inaccurate in one sense - the English outfield player whose sliced clearance led to the leap between Shilton and Maradona was called Hodge, not Hodges. Bentley Banana 12:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 replica

can someone who's more knowledgeable on editing these things add the 2007 Messi goal to this section, as it has been considered the second "hand of God" goal because of similarities between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpspendragon (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahanga (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead Clarification

I have clarified the lead by including the simple fact that the goal (and resultant controversy) was the result of an illegal handball which went unnoticed by the referee. The only reason the goal is notable and controversial at all is because it was illegal, but was allowed to stand (thus eventually giving the Argentinians the win by 1 point).

Not having this simple fact in the lead violates WP:NPOV. A detached observer (myself for example) should not have to read down 4 paragraphs to find out the whole core reason why the goal is notable in the first place. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Valid point; I would only suggest that illegal is a truism, and that brackets are undesirable in formal writing. Thus I would propose "...scored as the result of an unpenalized handball by Diego Maradona..." Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hand of God" Drawing

Why is there a drawing of the "hand of god" when you can go to YouTube and watch any number of videos of it. There's too much dancing around the bush on this site when easy explanations are available elsewhere. I don't get it. Jordinho (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The drawing is a blatant attempt by English propagandists to belittle the goal further than they have. I've seen this play over and over on Youtube, and two things stand out to me. One, Maradona followed through on his run, even as the ball was lost by his teammates. The more I watched it, the more I am convinced that there was something almost supernatural about that goal. The second thing is that Maradona jumped off a run, his timing almost perfect to arrive at the ball at the same time Shilton did. Why did Shilton try to punch the ball instead of catching it? Maradona at 5'5 could never compete with the 6-1 Shilton with arms outstretched.

The original play by Maradona was so subtle even the English players and announcers couldn't figure out what happened, his arm being held just above his right shoulder like a boxer shielding his face. This graphic is just as fraudulent as the goal, clearly showing "Maradona" catching the ball with his open fist high above his head and throwing it in. Why in the world wikipedia would use this clearly fraudulent image is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say, "The drawing is a blatant attempt by English propagandists to belittle the goal further than they have." it was created by Enriquecardova who added the image to this article on 4 October 2006, so maybe you should direct your comments about it to them. To claim that the image is somehow "fraudulent" is also over the top. In the diagram it states "Hand" of Maradona connects. Note that hand is in quotes clearly indicating ambiguity. It isn't English propoganda at all. I don't particularly like the image and don't see what it adds to the article and if it were up to me I would remove it, but it isn't fraudulent it is just a diagram someone created. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maradona denies apologize

The Sun published an article describing that Maradona apologised. Nevertheless, Maradona has openly denied such apologise. Would someone please write something about this? my english is not good enough. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.158.52 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 February 2008

I hope my edits of yesterday achived what you wanted. Thank you for your restraint in making a request rather than edits: I wish all readers whose English is not of a high enough standard to make good quality edits (including a very large proportion of the native English speakers on here) were as wise. Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilton amend

A small edit - The article stated "Many people, including Shilton, did not initially realise it was handball". The footage shows Shilton immediately gesturing to the ref by banging one hand on the other, appealing for handball. So I removed "including Shilton" from the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hand of God" is an admission

There such a thing as non-denial denial. Diego's "hand of God" claim is obviously a "non-admission admission". His choice of words ("hand") is a clear reference to the hand of Diego that struck the ball. --Kvaks (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hand of God II

Are there any plans to mention (here or in another article) the hand of God II? For those unaware, this was another incident with maradona, this time at the WC 1990 against Soviet Union. Behind 1-0, Soviets won a corner and served it. After a few touches, the ball came out to a Soviet player who blasted it from 30-35 meters out straight into the top right corner of the net, which was still covered by Maradona. Maradona stops the ball on the line with his hand, which the entire stadium and most of TV audience clearly saw. Referee did not see the violation and when surrounded by the Soviet players, he cautions Kuznetsov and ejects Bessonov (who was Soviets' captain and had the right to complain). This episode did not get as much play as the original Hand of God but it shows that what maradona did against England was not an isolated incident, rather a pattern Goliath74 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited paragraph

I'm removing the following paragraph:

Incidents of players seeking to gain an advantage by skirting the laws of the game, in the hope that the referee does not see, are common. This incident has derived its notoriety largely from the importance and closeness of the match, the animosity between the nations, and the responses of Maradona and the English media.

First, there's no evidence that such incidents are "common"? And how frequent is "common"? And if it's so obvious that it needs no citation, why does it even need to be said? Likewise for the second paragraph - if it is so obvious as not to need clarification, why bother saying it at all?

Anyway, previous sections already deal with the political and footballing background, and it's out of place in a section that otherwise deals exclusively with the events on the field. --Mosmof (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If something is to be included in an encyclopaedia, it must be wp:noteable. A handball is not noteable per se. Anyone who has watched much competitive sport will know that it is common for a player to try to get away with breaking the rules of any sport, and common does not need to be precisely defined. The two-sentence explanation is useful because it avoids the easily derived misconception that this was an extraordinarily heinous offence, and that it has gained a notoriety, arguably disproportionate to the actual events, for other reasons. I restore the explanation, not only for these reasons, but because we have already been through this on the talk page, and this was a compromise that gained, at least tacit, wp:consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, what I see isn't so much consensus as it is slightly toning down grossly POV to only slightly POV. Three people being okay with an edit is hardly the type of consensus that's so overwhelming, it wouldn't be worth the trouble to revisit.

Anyway, there's a world of difference between players simply pushing the laws of the games and "skirting the laws of the game, in the hope that the referee does not see". Which you suggest is so common that we don't need to bother even trying to support it with any sort of evidence.

Also, the importance of the handball and goal is dealt with in the "Context" section (though it could be fleshed out and supported better, and some mention could be made in the intro). The three reasons for the importance - the importance of the match, the rivalry, and the Falklands War - are already mentioned. And trying to avoid "the easily derived misconception that this was an extraordinarily heinous offence" is precisely what we try to avoid with WP:NPOV - you've decided the facts of the event promote a certain view, and you want to make sure that your perception of the events is reflected. Which isn't necessarily wrong, of course, but since this is a controversial topic, you can't simply say, "Well, everybody knows this, duh." --Mosmof (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that a single goal, even in a World Cup quarter final, is not, of itself, notable?

Do you agree that a goal that should have been disallowed is not, simply by virtue of that fact, notable?

Do you agree that many incidents of foul play occur every weekend that are not penalised?

Do you agree that when players commit fouls, they hope to avoid being penalised?

Do you agree that if such a goal had been scored in a mid-table clash between two League One teams, it would have received very little coverage and that it would be largely forgotten?

I would hope that you can agree to the above statements, and that they are not controversial.

Assuming your answer to all of the above is yes, is it better that an article make clear why an incident is noteworthy, when there would otherwise be reason to assume that it is not, or that this is left unclear? Kevin McE (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, whether I agree with any or all the above statements is immaterial. It would still be my opinion/perception. Also, I don't remember ever suggesting that we do not discuss the importance of the goal, just that the discussion of the importance is attributed to a third party, and that it's in a more logical place in the article. Mosmof (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)