(R) Arsenal v W Ham

So you think it was a foul in the box, but shouldn't be a penalty? Thinking like this is one of the things that gets players to dive...they know a referee is unlikely to call anything in the box unless it looks like a hard/significant foul.
This was a foul, and should have been a penalty...the attacker was clearly penalized for not going down.

 

I posted this in the Premier League Assignments Thread:

Anyone see the West Ham-Arsenal game? There was an incident in the penalty box where Sagna made contact with Jarvis, causing Jarvis to stumble, yet he kept his feet and tracked down the ball (which had gone towards the sideline). Most people agree that if Jarvis had simply gone down, a penalty would have been awarded. Yet he stayed on his feet, and no penalty. There was really no advantage either, because the ball was going away from goal, towards the sideline (he was running parallel to the top of the 18 yard box).

Here is an article: http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1...e-wenger-grateful-matt-jarvis-go-down?cc=5901

I'll try and find a video.

Video: Ack. They took the Video down
Skip to 0:40 for incident.

 

Yes, it was a foul. No Jarvis didn't fall down and get the penalty.

England may be the last remaining country where this behaviour is lauded as fair play. Big Sam was not happy though.

That second goal from a penalty might well have changed the dynamic of the game in The Hammers' favour.

 

Here is the clip: http://gfycat.com/ObeseWhichDairycow

 

Maybe for worse, maybe not ... but I tend to think that if this were not the case, we would have a lot more PKs.

 

I think this is something we should all ponder form time to time. Here's what I think I think.

I don't really think of myself as having a raised bar in the PA. (and indeed in intro classes, I simply stick with "a foul is a foul" -- newbies need to focus on knowing what they see before adding to the nuance of what not to call). I think I think there are really two kinds of fouls.

Thre are 100% fouls. We call those every time they happen, PA, midfield, back third.

Ther are game control fouls. These are the gray areas, where we are setting the tone for the game and perhaps tightening down on the tone and physicality. These are fouls that are on the edge of the trifling zone. At midfield, depdending on the tone of the game, we may or may not call them. These are the fouls that we are not going to call in the PA.

That may look a bit like a raised bar, but it is something a bit different and more nuanced.

 

Everyone says that anything they would consider a foul outside of the area, they would also call if it happened in the area.

Secretly, everyone sets their bar higher in the area.

Not me, though.

 

Honestly, I'd have a hard time giving a PK there. Yes it was a small foul, at mid-field, you'd be looking for an advantage since he touched the ball and continued after it, however in the PA advantage is only if there's a goal. But there's no pending attack here, without that foul he's not attacking, he's chasing the ball into the corner. Yes I know that's not supposed to be part of the decision process, but I put this one into the grey area where the book refs and the "game feel" refs will react different. Not saying either is right or wrong.

 

Don't have one . . . haven't been able to get the video links to work . . . as described, sounds to me like a close call that could go either way, but that's a pretty wild guess . . .

 

PG weighs in...

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/57633/the-great-diving-menace-finally-from-england.html