Talk:Match fixing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cleanup

I think this page could use a cleanup, especially the giant wall of text at the start? Any ideas? My own thoughts include: Splitting sections by which country the event took place in, or by sport, or perhaps by sport, then by country? Also, I separating these into 2 groups, one where matches are fixed for gambling or other non-sporting reasons, and the ones where the team or player tanks for some kind of sporting advantage (eg when the New Zealand Cricket team performed a low run chase very, very slowly, which just happened to knock out their rivals, the Australian cricket team, from the competition. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Sox

Some of the comments on the Black Sox Scandal are flatly incorrect. Specifically, the article says:

The effects of the Black Sox Scandal would lead to Major League Baseball adopting draconian rules prohibiting gambling which persist to this day.

The Black Sox scandal played a role in the establishment of the Commissioner's office, but had no impact on the rules against gambling. MLB had strict rules against gambling since the National League was founded, and there was no move to change them in the wake of the scandal. The use of "draconian" should also be avoided, as it doesn't represent a NPOV; "strict" or "zero tolerance" might be better terms. --Roger Moore 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed this, LouScheffer 05:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL referees

I removed the sentences related to potential fixing of NFL games by NFL referees as they appear to be the ravings of a disgruntled fan or gambler. The original section made four statements, three of which are ridiculous and the fourth was so lacking in information as to be misleading.

1. NFL referees made numerous errors favoring the Colts in the January 2006 playoff game between the Colts and Steelers. One error was made (on the fumbled interception). The league acknowledged the error the next day. It was an error, and may be evidence of fixing, but it was the only officiating error in the game that helped the Colts.

2. Walt Coleman errs in favor of the New England Patriots part I: the tuck rule. Walt Coleman correctly revered the play on the basis of the tuck rule. That is, he interpreted and applied the rule correctly. It is irrelevant whether one likes the tuck rule of think that it makes logical sense.

3. Walt Coleman errs in favor of the New England Patriots part II: the non calls on defensive pass interference in the first New England/Indy playoff game (AFC Championship, January 2004). Many agreed that these were bad calls, but they also reflected a recent officiating trend to "let the players play" in pass coverage situations. The league responded by directing the officials to enforce the rules more strictly the following season. Also note that the referee would not be the relevant official for multiple pass interference situations at a variety of places on the field.

4. David Boston's father officiates to help his son's team. This claim was made by a member of the Redskins (I forget his name). This point would make a worthy inclusion if all of the statements were included.