why did'nt Jarvis go down?

an interesting situation imo, goes against the sporting grain but is commonplace and mostly rewarded!

here's Gary Neville's opinion..

Gary Neville was adamant on Sky Sports last night.

The former Manchester United defender argued that Matt Jarvis should have dived when fouled by Bacary Sagna.

In a rare show of Premier League sportsmanship, Jarvis stayed on his feet and only stumbled when caught by Sagna in the box and referee Kevin Friend waved play on.

Neville, arguably the best pundit around, was adamant Jarvis should have gone down and Paul Merson also agreed with the former England full back.

During his nearly two seasons of punditry now, Gary Neville has been consistent with his opinion on diving in the modern game.

Essentially, its part of professional football, no other country on the planet frowns upon it like in the UK and the sooner English players learn to go down when touched, the better for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dagenhamJohn

an interesting situation imo, goes against the sporting grain but is commonplace and mostly rewarded!

here's Gary Neville's opinion..

Gary Neville was adamant on Sky Sports last night.

The former Manchester United defender argued that Matt Jarvis should have dived when fouled by Bacary Sagna.

In a rare show of Premier League sportsmanship, Jarvis stayed on his feet and only stumbled when caught by Sagna in the box and referee Kevin Friend waved play on.

Neville, arguably the best pundit around, was adamant Jarvis should have gone down and Paul Merson also agreed with the former England full back.

During his nearly two seasons of punditry now, Gary Neville has been consistent with his opinion on diving in the modern game.

Essentially, its part of professional football, no other country on the planet frowns upon it like in the UK and the sooner English players learn to go down when touched, the better for everyone.

---

He shoul

I will not hold it against Jarvis for staying on his feet.

neither would i fella,

but is and remains a loyalty to your employer question, not too mention supporters.

The thing is John, he shouldn't have to go down as though he has been shot, ala Suarez. There wasn't enough contact to make him fall over, but there was clear contact, there fore it is a foul. People get pulled up for tapping someones ankles in midfield with minimal contact. I think the loyalty should be to the game of football, which wasn't invented for c unts to throw themselves to the ground at the slightest touch. Again it is up to the powers that be to change the rules and for refs to start showing some common sense.

Going to ground is ok with me, its the rolling around and play acting that really p's me off.
What is the real shame here is that even though he was fouled and was seen by the Ref he wasn't awarded a penalty because he stayed on his feet.
Again it's the Ref's decision not to give it, so in my eye view it's the ref's fault
Hat doffed to Jar Jar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by castiron

The thing is John, he shouldn't have to go down as though he has been shot, ala Suarez. There wasn't enough contact to make him fall over, but there was clear contact, there fore it is a foul. People get pulled up for tapping someones ankles in midfield with minimal contact. I think the loyalty should be to the game of football, which wasn't invented for c unts to throw themselves to the ground at the slightest touch. Again it is up to the powers that be to change the rules and for refs to start showing some common sense.

---

What he said. Down to the ref to call it. I thought he was playing advantage, and in rugby he would have got the penalty. But that's a whole other debate ;)

I'm not sure we should credit Jarvis with that much integrity.

I reckon he felt the tackle but didn't associate it with earning a penalty. Don't think he's sharp enough.