frbleus1-6, Exercise 2: "France was robbed in Séville in 1982"

Model answer (check the details), using the six questions:

1. Who says it? French fans, press and some neutral commentators; Germans tend to present it differently.
2. What exactly is claimed? That the result was unfair because of the referee's failure to punish the Schumacher-Battiston collision. "Robbed" suggests the whole result was decided by that decision, which is stronger.
3. What would count as evidence? Film of the incident, the laws of the game at the time, the referee's report, and expert comments on whether a foul or red card was warranted.
4. Compared with what? Other World Cup refereeing decisions of the time, and the rules then in force on goalkeepers and challenges.
5. Which period? The laws and refereeing standards of 1982, not those of today.
6. What would change my mind? A showing that France lost the lead because of its own play (two goals conceded in extra time) and the penalty shoot-out, rather than because of one decision.

Verdict: the collision was a serious incident and many observers think a penalty or red card was warranted (check), but the match was lost after France led 3-1 and in a shoot-out, so "robbed" is too strong a word for the whole result.

Care: the claim is emotional as well as factual. Separate "the decision was wrong" from "the result was unjust".