BFTG - Huddersfield

[Brum Royal]

Poor game, won by probably the only piece of real quality football (and that was only three quick passes) of the afternoon. The most pleasing thing was the fact we looked very defensively solid (certainly compared to the last game I saw at Birmingham!), but then again we didn't really look like creating much (again compared to the last game at Birmingham).

When we won the ball at the back we lumped it forward too often, only to have it come straight back at us, but as others have said, either due to our defensive diligence or Huddersfield's lack of quality they never really threatened.

Was asked sarcastically by one Town fan on the way out how much we paid the ref, but in all honesty I thought he was pretty terrible throughout, certainly not seeming to favour us. Although perhaps Mackie was a little fortunate to make it to half time.

[Hoop Blah]

Isn't the truth of the matter the fact that dissent could be stopped almost instantly if refs adopted a hardline policy of showing a yellow whenever it occured?

Yes, so long as the authorities backed them up.

The more general point is a valid one too. Good referee management is a skill that rugby players learn early and most footballers appear to ignore. Harps was a master, he played the referees really well and it had a positive impact for us. Antagonising the ref is not often a good plan, getting him onside while robustly (politely) putting your case is.

Good referee management? Go on then, enlighten me as to what that actually means and how it influences the outcome and the referee's handling of one team over another? As I've said, I don't watch Rugby so I've no real idea.

I see the difference professionally all the time. And you don't get to be a professional ref by being a shrinking violet who'll get bullied easily.

Acting the twat and being aggressive harms your chances of a good outcome. Being polite but assertive with a sense of humour will take you a long way.

Generally I'd agree, but in the heat of battle on a football pitch I'm really not sure I agree. I can't think of many occasions where I've seen players get the better decisions out of a ref because they've managed him well or been the more polite and respectful of the two teams.

Conversely, I think we can all probably think of times when teams and players who are perhaps a little more aggressive with referees seemingly get the rub of the green.

[Mr Angry]

In 40 years of watching Reading, that was the worst performance in winning an away game I've ever seen,

Without Murray we are hopelessly lacking up front, it's imperative we either sign him or a decent alternative.

Steady defensively though

Was it even worse than Yeovil away last season?

[P!ssed Off]

In 40 years of watching Reading, that was the worst performance in winning an away game I've ever seen,

Without Murray we are hopelessly lacking up front, it's imperative we either sign him or a decent alternative.

Steady defensively though

Was it even worse than Yeovil away last season?

S'wat I was thinking. At least we didn't have to resort to cheating to get the win over Huddersfield.

[Nameless]

Out of interest Nameless, in what way did we bully the ref and in what way didn't it work for us?

The level of dissent was much higher, and obvious than usual. Several players, repeatedly, showed their displeasure at decisions given and not given. It was a noticeably more aggressive approach, but whether it was preplanned, coincidental or in response to what was not a great refereeing performance I don't know. It didn't work because we didn't get any favours from the ref, and we were forced into making a substitution to avoid a red card.

I'm confused on the lessons we can take from rugby too. Aren't we always being told that their respect and treatment of officials is exemplary? Surely they don't do anything to influence the judgements and decisions during a game?

What has treating officials with respect got to do with influencing their decisions ? It's not cheating.
Rugby captains constantly talk to refs. It's a two way process. They need to understand how a referee is applying the laws so they can ensure they play in line with the way the ref is officiating. Some refs come down harder on things like slowing down play or clearing out rucks and if the captain knows what the ref is looking for he can make sure his team are playing accordingly. On the other hand the captain can draw the refs attention to things, suggesting opponents are close to the law in areas means the ref will be looking at those things. It's done respectfully, but it's a skill and listening to the conversations via reflink can be a real education. Obviously footballers can do exactly the same thing, and probably a few do. But the footballers default position is a confrontational one whereas in rugby and cricket there is a whole different (and I would say more sensible) approach.
I don't think it is any way true to say we've been unfairly treated by refs long term because other teams take an aggressive, confrontational approach. I doubt you could come up with any evidence to support that. Odd anecdotes don't demonstrate a pattern and someone who wanted to could probably match every 'the other team bullied him' case with a 'he went against the bullied team'
You are obviously entitled to think that a) you can intimidate refs and b) it's a valid tactic. I firmly believe you get more from a ref by not getting on the wrong side of him. I also think most footballers are simply too thick to use intimidation as a conscious tactic, it's an instinctive reaction as can be seen by how often they simply argue for the sake of it even when clearly in the wrong.

[Ian Royal]

The arguing is I think to put doubt in the refs mind. It's not so much about that decision, but about making it as hard as possible for him to make the same call or so he'll be softer. Personally I'd like to see a fukton more yellow cards for dissent. On the other hand, the refs need to make fewer clangers and talk back to the players about why they're making their decisions, it's not a one way process.

[Nameless]

Would love to see refs talking to players, but it would need players to be receptive to those conversations, and for them to understand things like the offside law and what handball is. Sadly I suspect if a ref tied to explain most decisions the players would just argue anyway.
I think you are right that there is probably some element of creating an element of doubt in the refs mind, but as I said I don't think generally it's as well thought out as that. But you can do that in better ways then screaming in the ref's face and throwing the ball away.

[Royal Ginger]

2 official protests against a decision per match which can only be used by the Manager, and only result in an overturned decision if there is un-controvertible video evidence ala Tennis and Baseball. Any other haranguing of the referee or officials should be an instant Yellow card.

Obviously doesn't fit into the way football works at the moment but sometimes i do wonder if something like that would clean up some of the gamesmanship.

[Nameless]

This is getting well away from the original thread !

Don't think the video idea could possibly work as refereeing is almost entirely subjective, unlike tennis where it is entirely objective. in practice I think trying to use any kind of video would be unworkable for anything other than line decisions and possibly offsides.

Other sports deal with dissent pretty well and I still think properly using the 10 yards forward punishment is the best answer.

[3points]

Perhaps there could be a sin bin for dissent as well as the 10 yard punishment.

My son is a referee and he has been encouraged to talk to players to explain decisions, especially at junior levels. I suspect there is more communication between the ref and players at professional level than we see. It is interesting that the football authorities will not allow refs to be mic'ed up, unlike in rugby, largely due to the bad language of the players. We often see John Terry in the face of a ref trying to get opponents sent off (though Alex Pearce is no saint in this respect either and Gunter just annoys me the way he whinges to the ref).

As for rugby, it is about pointing out repeat discretions (or near discretions) so that it is in the refs mind in future. An equivalent in football would be pointing out shirt holding at corners and set pieces and then hoping the ref keeps more of an eye out for it in future

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

You could still mic the ref up, it does not have to be made public, and probably shouldn't be, at least not to start with.

[Nameless]

Premier league officials already have radio links between themselves. Doubt it is recorded, not sure if the assessor has access.
As a ref you always tell the players why you have penalised them, you don't just blow your whistle and point. Communicating why you haven't given a free kick is harder, and there are many more offences committed in a game than you actually penalise.

[Hoop Blah]

Would love to see refs talking to players, but it would need players to be receptive to those conversations, and for them to understand things like the offside law and what handball is. Sadly I suspect if a ref tied to explain most decisions the players would just argue anyway.
I think you are right that there is probably some element of creating an element of doubt in the refs mind, but as I said I don't think generally it's as well thought out as that. But you can do that in better ways then screaming in the ref's face and throwing the ball away.

Ref's do talk to players, quite a lot, and players talk to refs a lot too. The better refs at any level are usually the ones that can talk to players more and keep things under control.

Of course a lot of the contentious decisions see dissent that is way over the top, and I'd love to see that stamped down on more than it is, but you're mad if you think players and refs don't talk during the game and that sometimes having a pop at the ref doesn't help the next time they have to make a decision.

It's not pretty but it's the reality of the game unfortunately.

[West Stand Man]

I don't think anyone is diosagreeing with that. It is how you have that pop at the ref that we are disagreeing about. A robustly polite dig at a (perceived) poor decision is usually going to have a more positive impact than a rant. One antagonises the ref the other gives a reasonable chance that he has a think.

[Hoop Blah]

I don't think anyone is diosagreeing with that. It is how you have that pop at the ref that we are disagreeing about. A robustly polite dig at a (perceived) poor decision is usually going to have a more positive impact than a rant. One antagonises the ref the other gives a reasonable chance that he has a think.

And yet we see refs bullied by managers and players alike all the time and the likes of Wenger, Fergie and Mourinho do it all the time, let alone their players, because they know it works.

I don't like it, but Reading have been a bit too soft for years and have probably suffered at times. I'm sure we might've got a few breaks now and again as well, but putting a ref under pressure to not make a call against you obviously works in the long run.

[Nameless]

To go back to the start....

The way we were dealing with the ref on Saturday was counter productive. Terry, Fergie et al might get a perceived advantage by their behaviour but that is because they are massively high profile individuals. John Mackie carries no weight in the game and for him to behave as he did will be nothing but negative for us.
In the same way that players who dive get.a reputation amongst refs, so, do players who have a bad attitude.

To so that is the nature of the game is no excuse. Presumably diving, two footed tackles and shirt pulling at corners are also positive aspects because sometimes they are perceived to work ? It's not an especially healthy view of the game is it......

[Angry Shed Sex]

I though we got rid of John Mackie in 2004. Is he back?

[genome]

Reverse angle of the goal. Lovely one-two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8KY_O7TlM

[SCIAG]

I see the difference professionally all the time. And you don't get to be a professional ref by being a shrinking violet who'll get bullied easily.

Acting the twat and being aggressive harms your chances of a good outcome. Being polite but assertive with a sense of humour will take you a long way.

Generally I'd agree, but in the heat of battle on a football pitch I'm really not sure I agree. I can't think of many occasions where I've seen players get the better decisions out of a ref because they've managed him well or been the more polite and respectful of the two teams.

Aaron Kuhl is an absolute master of this. At an U18 match last season, I think it might have been Liverpool, Owusu tripped an opposition player and it was one you've seen given as DOGSO. Two opposition players went running at the ref, Kuhl got himself between them and the ref, they cleared off, and he had what seemed to be a reasoned conversation with the referee. Owusu got away with a yellow.

I'd much rather see us trying that sort of thing than being horrible to referees, even if it doesn't work quite as well. At the start of McDermott's reign we tried haranguing referees and it was tough to watch - particularly as the main culprits (Mills, Howard and Long) kept getting sent off anyway. We eased off on it the next year and set some sort of record for penalty wins.

[ZacNaloen]

Kuhl the younger is a natural captain, even in the few games he has played for the first team he's stood out with his talking and (attempted) organising.