- Admin
- #161
100% correct. When their player went down with cramp , for the second time, there was no play for well over 3 minutes, then they had a sub and wasted more time. the game should have gone until at least the 98th minutes. I guess that when you concede such ridiculous goals like we did, City had themselves to blame. Thought Bowman was fairly good in the first half with Martin but in the second half , we literally had no strikers on the pitch. Crewe were an utter disgrace, worsened only by the ref.We really deserved to have won this.....very frustrating but it is looking increasingly as if our lack of a decent striker is inevitably going to cost us.....mind you it does not help when you have such an utterly useless referee......
last couple of minutes why the hell did the ref not insist on getting the Crewe player off.....the last couple of minutes shocking behaviour from the Crewe team.
.......... apart from that I didn't think the ref got as much wrong as they said on the radio. Disappointing in the end not to win given we had so much ball in their half late on.
I think most people accept that the match was thrown away by us but the rules about round injury time are clearly there so that teams like Crewe cannot wind the clock down unfairly. Because of the ref's abysmal timekeeping and management of the situation tonight, Crewe did just that. How many points have been won or lost in injury time? Just take a look at the Pompey game. Nobody had a stopwatch Pete- its just doesn't take much working out that if a player is down for most of the injury time added, then more should be needed. It is literally like the ref stopping the game after 88 mins of normal time.Do we really have to get a stopwatch out at the end of a match and challenge the referees timekeeping? We werent good enough FFS! Their keeper was only pint sized and should have been challenged more.