Talk:1966 FIFA World Cup final

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

Most Watched[edit]

Did the royal wedding or queen's jubilee or something overtake it as the most watched event? must've done by now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.212.193 (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely it will be overtaken since viewing figures are a lot less now than they used to be. There were only two TV channels back then compared to hundreds now.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

On this web page, there is two different dates of the final, one in july and one in august, when was this match played?

What do the rules say about fans entering the pitch?

I'd like to identify all the players in the famous photo. I think they are (left to right):

Jackie Charlton (top left), Nobby Stiles? (bottom left), Gordon Banks, Alan Ball, Martin Peters?, Geoff Hurst, Bobby Moore, George Cohen?, Ray Wilson?, Bobby Charlton.

Can anyone confirm? --Auximines 13:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I agree. You are definitely right about Stiles and Peters. Not so sure about Cohen and Wilson. Who is the barely discenable player between Peters and Hurst? I'm sure it is a player, they seem to have a red top on. Is it Roger Hunt? David Thrale 13:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I found this photo (a copy of which was once on my bedroom wall), which has all the names:[1]. You were right: I can see now that I had Cohen and Wilson the wrong way round (similar faces, but Cohen has more hair up top!) . By a process of elimination, the barely visible player must be Hunt. So here's the line-up:
Jackie Charlton (top left), Nobby Stiles (bottom left), Gordon Banks, Alan Ball, Martin Peters, Roger Hunt (barely visible behind Peters), Geoff Hurst, Bobby Moore, Ray Wilson, George Cohen, Bobby Charlton.
I'll try to add this list of players to the photo caption. --Auximines 09:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Move for consistency[edit]

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial third and fourth goals[edit]

I'm finding it hard to cite that many people consider the fourth goal controversial. Wouldn't it come under the (admittedly slippery) category of common sense, when viewed alongside the relevant rule that I already quoted? FWIW I have always heard other Scots regard it as controversial; of course, you may not regard Scots as neutrals in this instance! --Guinnog 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anyone moaning about the last goal. So I'm not suprised you can't find a cite for it, and so the text should be changed or removed. Jooler 13:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK. --Guinnog 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says "Allowing the fourth goal to stand, although it was scored as a pitch invasion was in progress, was, like the award of the third goal, an example of home advantage. The laws of the game clearly state that the game should be stopped in such circumstances [2]." - This is a clear example of someone trying to push a POV. I haven't looked into the edit history. Jooler 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are talking to me, as it was me who wrote that. Which POV are you accusing me of trying to push, exactly? --Guinnog 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not get into a slanging match over this. I hadn't even looked at the edit history. I'll depart and let others decide. Jooler 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the info after an IP editor deleted it with an abusive edit summary. The controversy about the third and fourth goals seems not only straightforward but well-referenced to me. Anybody disagree? I'd rather argue it out here than get into an edit war. Thanks --Guinnog 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both goals were seen as valid by the officials on the day. The fact that an entire nation who were not there, ad have a history of supporting 'ABE' (anyone but England) object is a pure delight that enhances the fact that we won the game on the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor-Scrumpy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my problem with the article is that you describe the game which is fine and then you add the "Controversial third and fourth England goals" paragraph which is IMO totally out of order. My problem is not about saying that refereeing mistakes were made. It's the way you seem to be stressing that they were made intentionally (This has definetly never been proven and is at the very least a POV. If it took an Oxford University computer study to determine that the ball hadn't crossed the line then it is absolutely possible that the referee made a mistake in "good faith", the fact that Roger Hunt stopped playing must have contributed to the mistake) and in England's favour (letting the game continue when fans had come onto the pitch was not in anybody's favour, right England scored but the german defenders continued to play, this goal isn't even disputed by german fans). Also if you are going to mention the controversial decisions then you should add the free kick that lead to Germany's second goal. That was an absolutely scandalous decision (to award it). Plus the ball hit a german player's hand before going in (which is just as controversial). If you are going to mention controversial moments you should mention them all not only the ones in "England's favour". I would be satisfied with the article if you moved the part about the Oxford University study to the "Extra time" section and deleted the "Controversial third and fourth England goals" paragraph (the bit about the 4th goal being controversial is already in the "Extra time" section anyway). Most of the content of the article is correct (and I do not dispute it) it's the way it is presented that is dishonest. Also the bits that go along the lines of "in Germany it is commonly believed..." have got nothing to do on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your considered and sensible response. I'll have a think about your suggestions towards improving the article. I may copy them to the article's discussion page as well, so that others can join the discussion. That's how things are improved here in my experience. Thanks again.--Guinnog 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the sentence "The laws of the game clearly state that in such circumstances, the game has to be stopped because of outside interference of any kind". That law isn't clear at all. What exactly is "outside interference". Certainly I don't think the pitch invasion could be deemed "outside interference" since thet were nowhere near the ball and both team continued to play as normal.--82.6.163.253 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please then name me a few games where the match has been allowed to continue during a pitch invasion. --Guinnog 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any football matches with pitch invasions during play period. There is a famous amrican football game called "the play" where that happened and play continued. However I think that's rarther beside the piont. --Buc 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you revert the article then? I agree it's beside the point what happened once in an entirely different sport. The laws of football are entirely clear and unambiguous, as the article says. Please don't remove verifiable information from it again. --Guinnog 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question I was aking was not, has it ever happened? it was what the rules means because to me it's unclear.--Buc 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog you haven't reacted to my comment: How comes the controversial decisions "in England's favour" are mentioned twice and are even given a whole extra paragraph while the decisions in Germany's favour (like the controversial free kick that was awarded and that lead to the 2nd german goal) are not even mentioned? How can this article claim to be fair? You are clearly pushing a POV.

I thought it was obvious. The "controversial" free kick is an everyday run-of-the-mill we-wuz-robbed incident, such as occurs in almost every football match. England's third and fourth goals were both apparently scored in flagrant breach of the laws of the game. Or, to put it simply, one is notable and verifiable (per WP:V), and one isn't. --Guinnog 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I don't think you can say the fourth goals controversy is notable. I've never heard anyone talk about it till now.--Buc 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the laws of the game then. --Guinnog 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a better sourse than that. As said before the rule seems unclear.Buc 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I also said before, if you think the rule is unclear, maybe you can provide a list of a few other major football matches where play has continued during an invasion. I changed the wording though, to give a more neutral appearance. What do you think? --Guinnog 09:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also as said before it's got nothingh to do with whether play has continued during an invasion in other matches. It's to do with the rule simply not being clear.Buc 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me. --Guinnog 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have never heard anyone ever before complain about the 4th goal being "controversial", I would say that the emphasis given to its "controversy" in this article counts as original research. Forget whether it was within the rules or not, the point is is it "controversial"? Has it ever been a sore point over which there has been as much debate as the third goal? If there is no substantial evidence of a controversy arising from the goal, then it is by definition not controversial. Jooler 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the suggestion seems to be that as soon as the first person put a foot onto the pitch the Ref should have blown up. Well he didn't, and I doubt that any Ref ever has. Jooler 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that suggestion in the article. I would have thought that the straightforward reference to the rule that the ref didn't enforce on the day was evidence enough for controversy, but I will try to find a more specific reference to the controversy. --Guinnog 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Law says "stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind;" - the key word is "interference". - Whether a member of the crowd on the pitch is interferring with play is open to interpretation, but the article says "the laws of the game state that in such circumstances, the game has to be stopped". Jooler 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I would have thought it obvious that a pitch invasion would constitute interference and cannot think of a single other example where a match has been allowed to continue during one. As I said I will try and find a more specific reference though. --Guinnog 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems pretty clear to me." Well it's not. "I would have thought it obvious that a pitch invasion would constitute interference" They were nowhere near the ball. How can they have been interfering. "cannot think of a match has been allowed to continue during one" that doesn't proove asnything. Except that pitch invasions are very rare. Buc 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially a few seconbds before the final whistle. They key thing here though is about the so-called "controversy". Did the Germans complain about it after the game? Without any evidence to say that they did I can't see how it can be called controversial. Jooler 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of no evidence being produced to suggest that any controversy or complaint arose from the fourth goal, nand am removing this from the paragraph. Jooler 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler, you are looking for a controversy, and you have one now: stop pushing your POV, and don't try again to delete the section on the circumstances of the fourth goal. -- Matthead discuß!     O       10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence? Jooler 10:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - Please find a cited reference for controversy and please amend your tone. I have avoided being dragged into dispute on this page for months, and since I first raised the issue in June (after Guinnog said he couldn't find any citations for such a controversy) no-one has been able to come up with any evidence and several people have objected to the words. Before I deleted it, the para had been considerably watered down (not by me I hasnten to add) so that it said "it is commonly believed that in the spirit of the game the goal was fair. Few Germans dispute the validity of the 4th goal" - that's practically spitting distance from saying there is no controversy. If YOU think that there is controversy over the goal but cannot provide any citations them I am afraid that it is you who are pushing a POV and promoting original research. Jooler 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want evidence for a controversy? You are the controversy, trying to whitewash the very "lucky" circumstances of England's only WC win. Apart from that, there is no controversy, as it is not disputed that people were on the field. I do not have to prove this fact, you do have to disprove it if you want to delete the section. There is a whole Wikipedia article (They think it's all over) on the issue, Yahoo mentions it, but you try to delete this fact! Is it in the spirit of the game that English hooligans can do in Wembley as they please, and noone is allowed to talk about it? The English media should have paid more attention to it, maybe that would have prevented Heysel Stadium disaster and Hillsborough disaster. There was no point for the German team and the media to make a fuss about the fourth goal, as the third (non) goal had been the deciding factor anyway. Germany had to attack and score an equaliser now, and this opened opportunities for the English, but they couldn't score in 9 minutes with only 11 men on the field. In comparison, Italy was much quicker in nailing the coffin during in the 2006 semifinal. The end of the game was anything but proper, and this fact will not be forgotten nor deleted from Wikipedia articles. Besides, Germans have played in seven World Cup finals, more than any other nation, winning three and losing three fair and square, with the 1966 game being the odd one out. Germans are not as bad losers as the Argentinians, who started to fight after they had lost the 2006 quarterfinal. The 1966 circumstances will remain recorded for posterity. End of discussion. -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that there is controversy surrounding the forth goal. But I am going to question the notability of it. Particularly in comparison to the controversy surrounding the third goal. Also the rule regarding it is unclear. What exactly is “outside interference of any kind”? To me for a pitch invasion to be interfering the fans involved have to either but in an area of the field close to the ball, be making physical contact with a player or distract a player to stop playing. None of these were the case in 1966. Buc 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt. Please try to remain calm. I'm a little alarmed that you have decided to rant about hooliganism and Heysel Stadium in response here. There were people on the pitch and Jeff Hurst scored a goal. That in itself does not make a controversy. Did anyone go up to the Ref and complain about the goal? Did the German FA make a protest to FIFA? Did the German media report that the goal should not stand? Did any German player subsequently say in an interview that the goal should have been disallowed? Was there ever been any kind of protest by anyone whatsoever as to the validity of the goal? If the answer to all of these is no then there is no controversy. If the answer to all of these questions is no and you still maintain that there is controversy and the word controversy should be used in relation to the goal then I assert you are generating the controversy and on Wikipedia that amounts to original research. I have absolutely no problem with stating that the goal was scored when people were on the pitch. Everyone in England knows that and as you state we even have an article on it. But I have a major problem with you insisting that those facts alone make it a controversy. BTW the words "The Referee stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind" are taken from the notes to Law 5 of the current LOTG. Unless someone can prove that these words were the same as used in the LOTG for the 1966 World Cup I don't see how you can justify their use in this article. Jooler 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the article is how it is particularly with regard to this issue. I'm late to the party, but even in 1966, referees were expected to apply Law 18 (Common Sense) and interference has always been taken with that mindset. Unless an outside entity is endangering a player or in the middle of play, you don't stop the game. Forget people and replace them with a dog, if you wouldn't stop play for a dog just running through the pitch, you wouldn't for a person either. I believe those exact words were in the LOTG at the time, there have been few changes over the years in the actual wording. More in interpretations and figure updates. Here is a decent summary of the changes over the years. However, even if those words were in the LOTG, despite what many people think, good referees have always tried to apply common sense and Dienst was the best at the time, that's why he got the final.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Seems to me that there were a number of questionable refereeing decisions made in the game - the big difference between the two sides is the England made the most of their good fortune, whilst West Germany wasted their opportunities. Paul-b4 (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GB World Cup Overprint Stamp.jpg[edit]

The image Image:GB World Cup Overprint Stamp.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Havelange[edit]

I have removed the reference to Joao Havelange's accusations of match fixing, as there is a general consensus that Goal.com is not a reliable source, and also that Havelange's comments are heavily biased (he seems to think that the only tournaments that were fixed were ones that Brazil didn't win!) – PeeJay 13:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think it is correct to remove such accusations. Joao Havelange was FIFA President, and when he accuses England and Germany of match fixing, such a notation should not be removed because someone says 'Eh, he is biased anyway'. Jonathan0007 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England's Wingless Wonder Formation[edit]

I have no idea how to make pictures on here, but every source I've ever read, and the classic England side on Pro-Evo claims the "Wingless Wonders" as a 4-4-2 formation, not a 4-3-3 formation, the 4-3-3 formation was very common back then. The modern useage of the word "winger" in England is very different to how it is round the world, and how it as in England back then. Nowadays, in England it is used for wide midfielders, rather than wide forwards. It should be more like a modern day diamond formation, but with not so much as a gap between Charlton and Ball/Peters.

Here are just a few sources saying so: http://www.fifa.com/newscentre/news/newsid=510253.html http://www.englandcaps.co.uk/AlfRamsey19631974.html http://www.nationalfootballmuseum.com/pages/fame/Inductees/siralframsey.htm http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Midfielder


The current picture shows England lining up as a 4-3-3 as follows: 

             Banks

Cohen J Charlton Moore Wilson 

  Stiles  B Charlton  Peters

     Ball   Hurst   Hunt


But it should be a 4-4-2 more like this: 

             Banks

Cohen J Charlton Moore Wilson 

             Stiles

      Ball             Peters
           B Charlton

         Hurst   Hunt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIR17 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


OK, thanks to whoever changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIR17 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was me. God knows what the guy who made the line-up image was thinking though. I mean, the positions were all noted down for him, so why he decided to fabricate his own formations, god only knows. – PeeJay 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What were the rules for a drawn match after 120 mins?[edit]

Just bought the book The Importance of Being Trivial and a factoid says that if the match would have ended 2-2 after 120 minutes the game would have been decided by the toss of a coin. There were several European Cup ties settled that way during the 60s so its a distinct possiblity, however the article says there would have been a replay. Anyone with the match programme or similar source that could clarify? EDIT: perhaps it would have been the replay that would have been decided by coin toss? Seedybob2 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there would have been a replay. And if that replay would have again ended in a draw, there would most likely have been a coin toss. I say "most likely", because, although there WAS at least one club-level european cup decided that way, it has never been put to a test in a World Cup final (and it's good that it came out this way :-) ). red (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thruth and "wrong article"[edit]

Schnellinger's hand never touched the ball in the 90th minute. The third goal never was a. And the fourth goal also was irregular. If someone red this article he may coul think that England nearly won by "4-1" or something like that. That Students say "6cm left for a goal" cannot be... . So Schnellinger's "hand-ball" wasn't controversial too and during the last goal were lots of people on the field. So I think this article needs to be edited!!! The best is to wtach this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU 82.149.182.151 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Telecast of the 1966 Final[edit]

As an American I have a personal recollection that would be a worthwhile addition to this article, if someone can verify the details.

I watched the 1966 final in the U.S. on a live satellite feed. I believe it was televised by ABC as part of their "Wide World of Sports" show. As I recall, the significance of this is that it was the first time a sporting event was carried live via satellite on American television. In addition it was the first time a World Cup match was ever shown on American television. What made this memorable for me (I was in high school at the time and had never before seen a soccer match) was that when the game went into extra time, ABC switched to its regularly scheduled programming! As it was later explained in the media, ABC had only purchased satellite time for a regulation 90 minutes of game time. Since no World Cup final had ever gone into extra time, they had not bothered to make (or perhaps could not afford) contingency plans. The result was that "Wide World of Sports" abruptly went off the air after England tied the score 2-2, leaving the audience hanging. In an era when soccer was on the radar screen of very few Americans, I was unable to learn how the Final turned out until seeing the result in the next day's newspaper.

Simdav (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

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!

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

Dead link 2[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany / West Germany[edit]

Hi. There has never been a country named West Germany, i know it was colloquial language in foreign media to call the Federal Republic of Germany "West Germany", but this usage of words is surely no phrasing worthy of an encyclopaedic article, and it also lacks understanding of German history. Since disclosure seems necessary here: I'm from Germany, born in the German Democratic Republic or "East Germany" that is. I will however change "West Germany" to "Germany", because since 1900 until today, the governing body that has declared to represent all Germans in the DFB, the exact organisation that fielded the 1966-team, and the country and its institutions are the same as today, since from the eastern territories that joined the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990 no institutions or laws were inherited. And in the 1966-team - as well as in every other German lineup - men from the eastern territories of Germany were eligible to play, if only they were able to leave the then comunist country. In conclusion: Country is the same, governing body is the same, players eligible the same, name should be the same, and i think nobody thinks the Federal Republic of Germany should be called "West Germany" today. I hope nobody disagrees with this change, but if so, feel invited to join this discussion-posting. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments, but most sources refer to the team that took part in the 1966 World Cup Final as West Germany. You may view this as incorrect, but it does serve to remove ambiguity, as "Germany" (read in a modern context) could refer to either West Germany or East Germany. Referring to "West Germany" merely removes confusion. – PeeJay 09:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your thoughts. I have to disagree about your disambiguity-argument. You say "Germany" can refer to either "West Germany" or "East Germany". This is - as I already stated - simply not correct, since there never was a country named "West Germany" and there never was a country named "East Germany", they were called those names in foreign media for simplicity reasons, as the "Federal Republic of Germany" was part of the western capitalist world or first world, while the "German Democratic Republic" was part of Eastern bloc, or second world. Still this is not the correct term for the country, and is therefore no phrasing for an encyclopaedia. It is colloquial language that saves time, but still this doesn't make it the correct term. I do not make up names or use other possibly derogatory terms for other countries, and therefore would prefer, if wikipaedia articles are kept in a neutral tone too. So if there is really confusion to avoid, then the only correct way to do so, is to use the complete names of the country, and not some popular slang. To be honest, i didn't think there would be a confusion, and someone might think this final was between the German Democratic Republic and England, and not between the Federal Republic of Germany and England (since the German Democratic Republic only participated in one World Cup anyways). But that's probably me knowing already a lot about this topic and forgetting about people that know little about World Cup history, so i might be wrong. But if others do think the distinction is necessary, then please distinguish the teams with the real names of the country and not colloquial language. Finally i want to point out, that the link to Germany National Football Team leads to an article that already explains, that there were temporary governing football associations other than the DFB, so if there really is a confusion which German team this is, a click on the link of the team name will resolve that confusion.

Your second argument is, that "most sources refer to that team as West Germany". That may be right, but is that really the deciding criterion? If i find, that most sources say, that eg Evolution is wrong, and Intelligent Design is right, will that decide the content of a wikipaedia article? I know it's a bad example, and i don't want to provoke a political or offtopic discussion, i just want to make the point that what many people say is not necessarily right. But unlike in discussions about "most sources say Britney Spears is the best singer of all times" this whole thing is not up to taste, political views, scientific surveys, or speculations. It is simply a fact, that the name of the country this team represents is not "West Germany", so it is not right to call the football team that represents this country "West Germany". If you don't believe that this is a fact, then look it up on every government document of the Federal Republic of Germany, the name "West Germany" is never used. And btw: it is not like, there is no source using the proper name of the team. It may not be the majority (i don't know tbh), but i am confident, that i can find a sizeable number of references using the correct term, which will be enough for every passage of this article. German sources use the correct term anyways, i could bombard you with thousands of sources in German language that use "Germany" or "FRG" or "BRD", and not "West Germany". At the end it is the souvereign right of a country to name herself (see also Macedonia vs Greece) and in English the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" has the official name "Federal Republic of Germany" - or short "Germany" - and has never called herself or referred to herself as "West Germany", or "Federal Republic of West Germany" or any other alteration including geographical terms. And the governing body of German football since 1900, the "Deutscher Fußballbund" which translates into "German Football Association" has never called itself "West German Football Association" or referred to its players as "West Germans". As i have already mentioned above, all Germans were eligble to play, whether they are from east or west or south or north. Even Germans born in other countries are eligible, like Paolo Rink born in Brazil, or Miroslav Klose/Lukas Podolski/Piotr Trochowski born in Poland, or Oliver Neuville born in Switzerland, as long as they have German ancestry.

It is and was the explicit objective of the DFB to represent all Germans. This is exemplified when the Federal Republic of Germany played in eastern Europe, thousands came from the German Democratic Republic to support the team from the other side of the Iron Curtain. They did that even though the German Democratic Republic over time started penalizing people who support the "class enemy" from across the border. Sometimes travel into a country (in the eastern bloc!) was denied for everyone weeks before a game of the DFB-team took place in this country, to keep citizens from the German Democratic Republic away from the stadion and away from cheering for the team of the Federal Republic of Germany. And people who managed to come to the stadion and grab tickets anyways were treated bad by the comunist government. On the DFB matches in Eastern Europe there were always government officials (Stasi-members) who obverved the German fan crowd and took their personal data on record. Those fans were then observed and herassed by the state, they had to suffer various disadvantages, in the comunist system they had the same rank as a former convicted sex criminal. Still throughout history the support for the DFB-team was larger than for the DFV-team (representing the German Democratic Republic), because the DFV-team was always affiliated with opressive socialist regime, and the DFB team was considered the "real" team of free Germany, even during a time when the DFV won the Olympic gold medal (1976). But this only as a little view inside why the DFB objective to represent all Germans is not without validation, even if you take the emotional and historic aspect out of the equation, it is still not appropriate to use the term "West Germany" in an encyclopaedia.

The only question remaining is, if there has to be a distinction between the two teams of DFB and DFV, because the link in the country name is not enough. In the case, that a destinction seems necessary, the name of the country should be used, the name this country has given herself is "Federal Republic of Germany". Also okay would be the name of the governing body: DFB, in English its official name is "German Football Association" (i just looked it up to be sure), but in my taste the name of the country represented is more suitable. Since the DFB (founded in "East German" Leipzig, based in "West German" Frankfurt am Main) has always declared it represents all Germans "Germany" should suffice. In this point I may be biased, beeing a German myself, so if other neutral users opionion is, the DFB does not represent all Germans despite declaring so, then the country name can be used for distinction, and the country name is "Federal Republic of Germany". As i have stated repeatedly now, and explained extensively, besides the simple and short "Germany" this is the only proper term.

Thanks for reading and my apologies for the long text. Greetings Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even now the 66 match is still in the media in the UK - and still refered to as West Germany. Agathoclea (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure, that in 1966 all papers simply referred to Germany.Henrig (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both were used. The comentary on the video I found (colour version shown in cinemas back then) refers to West Germany but later says "Germans supporters" Agathoclea (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too long... But what happened in 1990 was that the former Deutche Demokratiche Republik, DDR (G.D.R. / East Germany) became a part of the Bundesrepublik Deutchland. Today's German nation equals Bundesrepublik Deutchland (just larger). The unformal labels "West Germany" / "East Germany" were very common i various languages until 1990. Boeing720 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe as East Germany and West Germany were separate sovereign states, it behoves any good historian to recognise the partition that then existed. All the German players were residents of the West, the Iron Curtain was then in force. The German team lined up under the Federal Republic's flag.Cloptonson (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pretty funny when you compare "the hand of god" situation to this wiki[edit]

Way too much British bias is at wikipedia. Time to start cleaning this garbage up.

Please remember verifiability from good sources when making changes. Statements like 'everyone knows' are unhelpful.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This from the guy who demands sources that are littered all over the wikipedia's very own pages? That oxford study has been posted for ages and you know full well it existed. Wikipedia is not a place for your POV pushing waysWhatzinaname (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember this. Editing is supposed to be fun and something we want to do, not a battle full of accusations and name-calling.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense about a handball Schnellinger[edit]

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) 17:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "no goal" - not inside the Match summary[edit]

In the describing of the match, I don't think what later technical measuring says really belong. If the Germans protested at the time, that could be noted. But it counted as a goal then, and still does. The referee thought so, and that's a part of the rules of the game. Hence it was a goal !
I suggest a separate section for the long time aftermath (within this article, but outside the Match summary). There it can be twisted from every possible angle (but this also applies to Maradonna's first goal in the 1986 quarterfinal). There's always an element of possible human errors - of which offside or not, perhaps is the most common. But England did win this final fair and square by the rules - at the time as well as in the history of Football ! Boeing720 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like as if West-German chancellor Ludwig Erhard officially declared, "If you don't nullify the two goals, we'll begin bombing London in five minutes." But it was a huge debate in the West-German public, media, and even politics at the time. In fact so much so that West-German President Heinrich Lübke tried to calm down his countrymen by making a public statement that West-Germans should accept that it had been counted as a goal, even if they did personally disagree that it truly was a goal. Even just this plea for acceptance by Lübke was a very unpopular move in the eyes of the West-German public and was considered to be due to his progressive cerebral sclerosis (dementia). --2003:EF:170D:4531:F072:C816:6101:3458 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of misheaded[edit]

What does misheaded mean in this case:

"After 12 minutes, Sigfried Held sent a cross into the English penalty area which Ray Wilson misheaded to Helmut Haller, who got his shot on target."

Google's references generally lead back to this article directly, or indirectly or to casual use in documentation. Stifynsemons (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise that it's the heading equivalent of "miskicked", where you attempt to head the ball but it goes in a different direction to that which would appear to have been intended. – PeeJay 09:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's last gasp equaliser - Offside.[edit]

A German player, possibly Karl Heinz Schnellinger, was offside. Stop the video [3] at 1 minute and 13 seconds in and, clear as day, the German player at the far post is, according to the offside Law as it stood in 1966, a good 2 yards offside. I have a still of it but copy/paste from my laptop isn't an option. Hence the video uploaded.

[3] MadAmster (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Your observations are counted as original research and would not be admissible on here. Has the offside been reported in any reliable sources? – PeeJay 16:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1966_FIFA_World_Cup_final&oldid=1218881033"