Should Probert have ended the match?

[K33NY]

Just watched highlights with Arsenal - Swansea

At 94m 30 seconds and 2-2 Swansea gets a possibility to counter attack, ref (Probert) clearly sees that they are attacking, looks up and see a Swansea player running forward in front of the Arsenal players,  when Swansea tries to pass, Probert whistles and match is over, though the attacker would have been alone with keeper if allowed to play on.


Again, this baffles my mind and again I think that the refs do fancy the bigger teams? Yeas 4 minutes was added on, but there is actually no rules that ref can let match keep going another minutes if he thinks it was necessary, if he wanted to end the match, it should have been when Swansea first got the ball outside theire box, not when passing to a open player, who 99% sure would have scored....

[Nick Bateman]

Sounds diabolical and it has been remarked on Talksport by Andy Goldstein as such.  And the referee knew perfectly well what he was doing to deny the Swans a last-gasp winner and they usually wait until the end of the move.

Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool have been massively 'favoured' by the officials for several years, in my view.

[K33NY]

Yeah the guys on TV2 PL studio said the same as you, that "Usually" if ref is aware that its so to say a sure thing to score, they wait until after the attack, and the worst thing is that you can clearly see that Probert lifts hes head and looks to the left and see the player, then look back at the ball, pass comes and he blows! I hate that referee, I have never liked him! Never, and that call was intentional!

[Rhys Lightning 63]

The law states that if the allotted time of added time is up, then they can allow an additional 10 seconds AND NO MORE to allow a team one final chance to score.

This is perfectly summed up by the end of the 2008 Carling Cup Final, when the ref (no idea who), blew the whistle for full time as the ball was rolling towards the net (it eventually drifted wide) as he had followed those rules

[LillieBoy]

The law states that if the allotted time of added time is up, then they can allow an additional 10 seconds AND NO MORE to allow a team one final chance to score.

This is perfectly summed up by the end of the 2008 Carling Cup Final, when the ref (no idea who), blew the whistle for full time as the ball was rolling towards the net (it eventually drifted wide) as he had followed those rules

Does it?

The law also states that the referee is the sole arbiter.

[K33NY]

The law states that if the allotted time of added time is up, then they can allow an additional 10 seconds AND NO MORE to allow a team one final chance to score.

This is perfectly summed up by the end of the 2008 Carling Cup Final, when the ref (no idea who), blew the whistle for full time as the ball was rolling towards the net (it eventually drifted wide) as he had followed those rules

can you show those rules, cus they summarised on TV2, one of them being former manager at Norwegian teams they said that the only thing the FA rules say is that the added time is a minimum time, if the ref see it necessary he can add more if he wants to. Not trying to argue with you cus you can be right, just want to see if there actually is a rule about it, a right or wrong.

[K33NY]

According to this http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf if you scroll down to page 28

Allowance for time lost
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
• substitutions
• assessment of injury to players
• removal of injured players from the fi eld of play for treatment
• wasting time
• any other cause

The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee.

So from this (fifa rules) there is actually no written rule about it.

[God The Mechanic]

Maybe time was up?

[Blanco]

I thought this.

[Deanothefulhamfan]

From a selfish point of view, I am glad he blew the whistle.... Swansea drawing still keeps them in the mix, but if they got an extra two points, I would have put a line through them as a team for us to catch....

If this was a team slightly higher up, I would feel sorry for them.....

[westcliff white]

it the time of the game has elapsed it doesn't or should not matter who is attacking and where they are. remember clive thomas in the world cup

[Bedford White]

My manager (also a good friend despite supporting Chelsea) and I often discuss this topic. He's adamant that the PL officials pressure the refs to favour certain teams, in an effort to ensure a close battle to the end of the season. I think he may be right but it's a theory without substantial evidence, it would surprise me though...

[grandad]

Refs always give extra added on time for penalties & corners. As usual it is the inconsistancy that angers fans.

[epsomraver]

Refs always give extra added on time for penalties & corners. As usual it is the inconsistancy that angers fans.

A ref has to allow a penalty to be taken, that is the law, strangely there is no such allowance for a corner!

[epsomraver]

Just watched highlights with Arsenal - Swansea

At 94m 30 seconds and 2-2 Swansea gets a possibility to counter attack, ref (Probert) clearly sees that they are attacking, looks up and see a Swansea player running forward in front of the Arsenal players,  when Swansea tries to pass, Probert whistles and match is over, though the attacker would have been alone with keeper if allowed to play on.


Again, this baffles my mind and again I think that the refs do fancy the bigger teams? Yeas 4 minutes was added on, but there is actually no rules that ref can let match keep going another minutes if he thinks it was necessary, if he wanted to end the match, it should have been when Swansea first got the ball outside theire box, not when passing to a open player, who 99% sure would have scored....

On your description then the player was offside?

[PokerMatt]

There were four minutes of added time and they had gone 30 seconds over that. Why not blow the whistle? Would have been more outrageous had he allowed the attack and they'd scored no?

[nose]

The game was over and he shopuld have blown up before the counter attack. the question is why did he allow arsenal to keep going when the game was finished, the rule isn't 90 minutes plus time until when arsenal's move breaks down.

[K33NY]

Just watched highlights with Arsenal - Swansea

At 94m 30 seconds and 2-2 Swansea gets a possibility to counter attack, ref (Probert) clearly sees that they are attacking, looks up and see a Swansea player running forward in front of the Arsenal players,  when Swansea tries to pass, Probert whistles and match is over, though the attacker would have been alone with keeper if allowed to play on.


Again, this baffles my mind and again I think that the refs do fancy the bigger teams? Yeas 4 minutes was added on, but there is actually no rules that ref can let match keep going another minutes if he thinks it was necessary, if he wanted to end the match, it should have been when Swansea first got the ball outside theire box, not when passing to a open player, who 99% sure would have scored....

On your description then the player was offside?

No the player wasnt offside I will try describe it


Near the passer was a Arsenal player, infront of passer was an Arsenal player, to the left of him wasn Arsenal player, Diagonaly was a Swansea player on the run.

Passer makes a through ball diagonally so the player can catch up with it infront of him, and that would have made him alone with keeper, but when pass was made, he was onside. When catching up with ball, he was behind everyone.

[K33NY]

There were four minutes of added time and they had gone 30 seconds over that. Why not blow the whistle? Would have been more outrageous had he allowed the attack and they'd scored no?

why did he allowe Arsenal to keep attacking over the added time then?

[westcliff white]

to be fair it is all irrelevant the ref blew as on his watch the game was over