Brett Huxtable can often be seen around the North Devon grounds, as I live in Mid Devon , I go to a few games on his turf and sometimes see his leather jacket clad figure walking around places such as Bideford.
Indeed he was at the Bideford v Torquay friendly this season and typically spent the vast majority of the match on his mobile to what appeared to be other refs, he was talking so loudly that it was obvious that he wanted the crowd to know who he was.
Now I do not know the chap personally, and have heard he is a smashing guy to be fair, but his chosen part time profession is clearly the most important part of his life and some would say is one big ego-trip for him.
As someone said earlier on the post he will dine out on last night for many a year to come.
For the record most of his overheard conversations, that he clearly wants others to hear, are questioning how this ref or that ref has reached that particular level......I am sure he is just what the FA are looking for !
Torquay United V Woking-Tue 18TH
Good first half and a poor second half but that's what you get when players are learning to pay with each other, Take the points about the ref- complete joke. On a more positive note am I the only person who thought our third centre back (Smith?) had a great game? The way he provided cover for the other centre backs and wing backs was great!
Still optimistic for the future.
Still optimistic for the future.
No, you're not. I thought he played really well tonight and reads the game very well also.Tamargull wrote:Good first half and a poor second half but that's what you get when players are learning to pay with each other, Take the points about the ref- complete joke. On a more positive note am I the only person who thought our third centre back (Smith?) had a great game? The way he provided cover for the other centre backs and wing backs was great!
Still optimistic for the future.
I was on the bench side and as the sun was blinding I couldn't see it properly but why was their centre back not red carded for a foul on Fisher in about the 20th minute. It was either a red card or a booking for Fisher who must have dived. Which I didn't think he did. When he heel flicked it over the defender I think he (the defender) thought it was going through to the keeper. But when he realised Fisher was going to get it, he impeded him and should have walked. Total cowardice by the officials imo.
I have to agree with Plainmoorbob the first half we were excellent and I feel it is because we used our midfield and passed the ball However 2nd half somehow we started playing long balls to the striker and the midfield was passed by this meant Woking were able to cope and gain more possession which led to us losing the game. But yes we should have had a penalty which could have resulted in Woking going down to 10 men but everyone has already put the cause down to the ref and I agree but again we were 2nd best 2nd half. The good point for me is that we are starting to look as if we are improving COYY.
-
wivelgull
- Top Scorer
- Posts: 1645
- Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 17:17
- Favourite player: ROBIN STUBBS
- Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Not being at the game (I was at Blyth to watch Blyth Spartans vs Whitby Town) I cannot comment on the game and the referee. Brucie's comments though, are great and made me laugh - good old brucie. No, what has really gripped my attention is samuel's contribution. Can he tell us what happened at the Devon & Cornwall Police vs Tavistock game?
Seen the first two home games and thought we were better in this than Macc.
Agree first half we were good, were slightly on top and as in all football, you need to score when your on top. As the game progressed I had the feeling Woking might nick it as we didnt really offer any forward threat but a draw was a fair result as it might have been v Macc.
I think the job so far by PC is to be applauded from what he took over. Very early days but we look a fairly solid outfit.
Some comments on the new players,
Dont see what Quigley offers - Do we have him on loan on the basis that he must play. Perhaps our style of play doesnt suit him or perhaps not used to it yet.
Fenwick - I know he didnt play yesterday but for me he gives the ball away too often, v city and Macc
Like Speiss, Ex, Hurst, Smith (excellent last night) , Butler, Fisher (think he went a down a little too easily from my view for the supposed pen).
For substitution thing was just nonsense and common sense should have prevailed.
Lastly, bought a programme and disapointed with the managers comments (lifted from the website) and Steve Breeds article (just lifted from the first programme about the player fund which i donate to- tell us something that is going on that we dont know - lackl of effort like that will make me not buy it anymore)
Agree first half we were good, were slightly on top and as in all football, you need to score when your on top. As the game progressed I had the feeling Woking might nick it as we didnt really offer any forward threat but a draw was a fair result as it might have been v Macc.
I think the job so far by PC is to be applauded from what he took over. Very early days but we look a fairly solid outfit.
Some comments on the new players,
Dont see what Quigley offers - Do we have him on loan on the basis that he must play. Perhaps our style of play doesnt suit him or perhaps not used to it yet.
Fenwick - I know he didnt play yesterday but for me he gives the ball away too often, v city and Macc
Like Speiss, Ex, Hurst, Smith (excellent last night) , Butler, Fisher (think he went a down a little too easily from my view for the supposed pen).
For substitution thing was just nonsense and common sense should have prevailed.
Lastly, bought a programme and disapointed with the managers comments (lifted from the website) and Steve Breeds article (just lifted from the first programme about the player fund which i donate to- tell us something that is going on that we dont know - lackl of effort like that will make me not buy it anymore)
TUST #324
-
yellowforever
- Skipper
- Posts: 732
- Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 20:02
- Favourite player: Our next signing
- Location: London
Ok now I've calmed down I feel better placed to make a few comments about last night's match.
We were the better team in the first half, and they were better in the second so I suppose a draw would have been a fair result, but they're not a bad team at all based on last night's showing. They pass it well and had a couple of tricky lads up front.
Our defence did very well on the whole - ExoGus put in a usual decent performance and the star man was once again Nathan Smith, who one day will be a top top defender. He reads the game so well and has terrific timing in tackles. He's also a lot stronger and better in the air than his size would suggest. We need to get him tied down for the season as he's way too good for this level, whether it's at centre-half or at right back.
Hurst had a really good first half, making clever passes and driving runs but I feel he tucks in a little too much, and in the second half it left us without a true wide option on the right. Butler worked very hard but couldn't produce a good enough delivery that often into the box, and when he did, there wasn't anyone attacking it. In all honesty I thought the system could and should have been changed in the second half. Woking doubled up on attacks in the wide areas and it became hard for the wing-backs, especially Butler who had two quick players against him, to defend without proper support. I would have liked us to perhaps bring off Hurst (who is still coming back into fitness and also was less effective in the second half) and bring on Sheppard. We could have returned to a 4-2-3-1 again with Smith shuffled across to right back, Sheppard ahead of him and then Briscoe on the left. Briscoe looked a little lost in the role he played last night, he didn't really have the fitness to get on the ball much as Woking's midfield was too quick and strong. Moving him out wide may have given him a bit more space, and he could have helped the full back out against Woking's quick overlaps.
Speiss could have been a bit stronger for their goal, but I think people calling for the return of Lavercombe are incredibly stupid. Speiss has done well this season so far and looks a very competent goalkeeper - the last thing we need to do is drop him after one mistake mid season, which would completely shatter his confidence. Some keep mentioning the 'resale' value of Lavercombe and don't seem to realise that Speiss could also be sold himself should it come to it. He's young and clearly a decent player.
I like Fisher up front, he's quick, strong and although his finishing was a little off he constantly caused trouble. He could have possibly got the goalscorer Yakubu sent off had Huxtable deemed the Woking player to have taken Fisher down through on goal. It wasn't a stone cold call for me, but on another day that decision may have gone our way. There's definitely a player there in Quigley - he's very strong and decent on the ball and in the air, but he needs to play and build a partnership with Fisher a bit more, as they seem on a different wavelength. They are both young though and see no reason for them not to build a good strike force as time goes on. I thought Carmichael and Richards were superb first half, both passing well and good at breaking up play.They struggled a little bit in the second half though as Woking seemed to out number and thus outpass us in the middle. Nevertheless they kept running trying to break up the play when they could, and I'm especially pleased for Courtney who is obviously a decent player but came under a lot of stick at the end of last season. He was messed around by the previous management and I'm delighted he's got his career back on track as he sounds like a good lad and a top pro.
Quick question - where was Fairhurst? I would have liked to have seen him last night coming on for Briscoe at the hour mark, as he was clearly out of steam and off the pace a bit. A couple mentioned that Fairhurst had previously played in a withdrawn striker number '10' role, and that perhaps was what we needed a little of last night. Heslop came on and looked totally off the pace. Woking's midfield was in full flow and Heslop had clearly not played much recently as he just couldn't get on the ball. He needs a few more weeks to get ready.
Second quick question - why didn't we use Sheppard earlier? Sure his end product could use a bit of work, but the only way to get Woking off the front foot was to offer our own bit of pace on the flanks, especially on the break.
Final word on the Referee and the sub controversy. Sometimes common sense prevails, and last night it did not. The referee's job is to uphold the laws of the game, but to also allow the game to proceed with the emphasis on the players and the match. As someone rightly pointed out, the best referees are the ones you don't notice. I don't doubt that it's a difficult job, but when you make decisions like he did last night you are only making it harder for yourself.
We were the better team in the first half, and they were better in the second so I suppose a draw would have been a fair result, but they're not a bad team at all based on last night's showing. They pass it well and had a couple of tricky lads up front.
Our defence did very well on the whole - ExoGus put in a usual decent performance and the star man was once again Nathan Smith, who one day will be a top top defender. He reads the game so well and has terrific timing in tackles. He's also a lot stronger and better in the air than his size would suggest. We need to get him tied down for the season as he's way too good for this level, whether it's at centre-half or at right back.
Hurst had a really good first half, making clever passes and driving runs but I feel he tucks in a little too much, and in the second half it left us without a true wide option on the right. Butler worked very hard but couldn't produce a good enough delivery that often into the box, and when he did, there wasn't anyone attacking it. In all honesty I thought the system could and should have been changed in the second half. Woking doubled up on attacks in the wide areas and it became hard for the wing-backs, especially Butler who had two quick players against him, to defend without proper support. I would have liked us to perhaps bring off Hurst (who is still coming back into fitness and also was less effective in the second half) and bring on Sheppard. We could have returned to a 4-2-3-1 again with Smith shuffled across to right back, Sheppard ahead of him and then Briscoe on the left. Briscoe looked a little lost in the role he played last night, he didn't really have the fitness to get on the ball much as Woking's midfield was too quick and strong. Moving him out wide may have given him a bit more space, and he could have helped the full back out against Woking's quick overlaps.
Speiss could have been a bit stronger for their goal, but I think people calling for the return of Lavercombe are incredibly stupid. Speiss has done well this season so far and looks a very competent goalkeeper - the last thing we need to do is drop him after one mistake mid season, which would completely shatter his confidence. Some keep mentioning the 'resale' value of Lavercombe and don't seem to realise that Speiss could also be sold himself should it come to it. He's young and clearly a decent player.
I like Fisher up front, he's quick, strong and although his finishing was a little off he constantly caused trouble. He could have possibly got the goalscorer Yakubu sent off had Huxtable deemed the Woking player to have taken Fisher down through on goal. It wasn't a stone cold call for me, but on another day that decision may have gone our way. There's definitely a player there in Quigley - he's very strong and decent on the ball and in the air, but he needs to play and build a partnership with Fisher a bit more, as they seem on a different wavelength. They are both young though and see no reason for them not to build a good strike force as time goes on. I thought Carmichael and Richards were superb first half, both passing well and good at breaking up play.They struggled a little bit in the second half though as Woking seemed to out number and thus outpass us in the middle. Nevertheless they kept running trying to break up the play when they could, and I'm especially pleased for Courtney who is obviously a decent player but came under a lot of stick at the end of last season. He was messed around by the previous management and I'm delighted he's got his career back on track as he sounds like a good lad and a top pro.
Quick question - where was Fairhurst? I would have liked to have seen him last night coming on for Briscoe at the hour mark, as he was clearly out of steam and off the pace a bit. A couple mentioned that Fairhurst had previously played in a withdrawn striker number '10' role, and that perhaps was what we needed a little of last night. Heslop came on and looked totally off the pace. Woking's midfield was in full flow and Heslop had clearly not played much recently as he just couldn't get on the ball. He needs a few more weeks to get ready.
Second quick question - why didn't we use Sheppard earlier? Sure his end product could use a bit of work, but the only way to get Woking off the front foot was to offer our own bit of pace on the flanks, especially on the break.
Final word on the Referee and the sub controversy. Sometimes common sense prevails, and last night it did not. The referee's job is to uphold the laws of the game, but to also allow the game to proceed with the emphasis on the players and the match. As someone rightly pointed out, the best referees are the ones you don't notice. I don't doubt that it's a difficult job, but when you make decisions like he did last night you are only making it harder for yourself.
"We are now so far up sh*t creek our boat is actually poking out the end of someones toilet bowl."
Brucie. 27/02/14
Brucie. 27/02/14
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
These officials should be banned from officiating until they have had extensive retraining.
Current FA rules state: 'a substitution is completed when the replacement enters the field of play, and the substituted player can take no further part in the match'.
But the FA should clarify the appropriate laws of the game (for the benefit of those in charge who may lack any common sense), as follows:
a) regardless of whether or not he has left the field of play, no player shall be deemed to have been substituted until play recommences;
b) any confusion as to which player is to be substituted shall be clarified and resolved by the team manager and officials before play recommences;
c) the officials shall accept the team manager's final and sole decision as to which player is to be substituted, before play recommences;
d) the replacement player shall not enter the field of play until the officials have accepted the team manager's decision;
e) a substitution is completed when play restarts after the replacement has entered the field of play, and the substituted player can then take no further part in the match.
Current FA rules state: 'a substitution is completed when the replacement enters the field of play, and the substituted player can take no further part in the match'.
But the FA should clarify the appropriate laws of the game (for the benefit of those in charge who may lack any common sense), as follows:
a) regardless of whether or not he has left the field of play, no player shall be deemed to have been substituted until play recommences;
b) any confusion as to which player is to be substituted shall be clarified and resolved by the team manager and officials before play recommences;
c) the officials shall accept the team manager's final and sole decision as to which player is to be substituted, before play recommences;
d) the replacement player shall not enter the field of play until the officials have accepted the team manager's decision;
e) a substitution is completed when play restarts after the replacement has entered the field of play, and the substituted player can then take no further part in the match.
Last edited by Gullscorer on 19 Aug 2015, 12:21, edited 1 time in total.
-
portugull
- Plays for Country
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 19:27
- Favourite player: lee mansell
- Location: Teignmouth
- Watches from: Bristow’s Bench
Thank you Gullscorer.Are you saying these are the FA Rules or are you saying these should be the rules?
If they are the FA Rules why do they need clarifying?
If they are as you state the Referee was WRONG and I hope the Club will make a very strong complaint about the referee who as I have said in another post is the worst referee I have seen in 60 years.He should NEVER referee at this level again.
If they are the FA Rules why do they need clarifying?
If they are as you state the Referee was WRONG and I hope the Club will make a very strong complaint about the referee who as I have said in another post is the worst referee I have seen in 60 years.He should NEVER referee at this level again.
I think I watched the same match as you last night PL21, but I don't recall Speiss 'missing or drop crosses/corners' - nor in the Macclesfield game. I don't put any blame on him for their goal, either. As I saw it, it was a clever corner by Kedell Daniel to the near post, headed over Speiss by a Woking forward and met by the experienced Yakubu. I do feel sorry for Dan Lavercombe, though. He was terrific at the end of last season and he was my preference to start this season. But Paul Cox opted for Speiss and in my opinion, Speiss has justified that decision. We have two very good young keepers on our books. But it does not help Dan's development kicking his heels on the sidelines and not even being on the bench.PL21gull wrote: However, how do we lose to a corner when we have 3 centre backs to guard the goal? Answer, we have a goalkeeper who may be a shot-stopper but who consistently misses or drops crosses/corners. This was especially poor when nearly all of Woking's corners were sent to or beyond the far post, so it was hardly a surprise. Will Lavercombe be given any chance to develop and to make money for the club?
As for Mr Huxtable, I am also going to write to the F.A. as another poster (D J Gull ?) suggested. I think he ref'd three matches at Plainmoor last season and his inconsistent decisions spoiled all three games.
-
gullintwoplaces
- Top Scorer
- Posts: 1368
- Joined: 13 Jun 2011, 15:09
- Favourite player: Mark Loram
I understand that Huxtable reads fans' forums and seems to like reading comments about him. Quite how he gets off on universal condemnation I do not know, to me that is plain weird. I was a university lecturer for several years, if I had received the comments that Huxtable gets regularly I'd have been utterly ashamed. Well Huxtable, these comments are for YOU.
I have been watching the Gulls for over 50 years and have seen good refs, bad refs and ok refs at Plainmoor. Huxtable is the worst by a country mile. Even worse than Darren Deadman, who is appalling. Huxtable thinks he can ref in the Premiership one day, he clearly has a strange sense of humour. If you want to be a top referee Huxtabkle then go away , retrain and change your approach completely. It is NOT all about YOU, referees are supposed to be part of the backdrop making the game tick over quietly and confidently. We don't need people with big egos as referees, it makes the game a pathetic display of referee power not a sporting spectacle.
Game after game when Huxtable has refereed a Torquay match he has screwed up, and not in our favour. Mistakes are human, referees make them and we should understand this. But mistake after mistake after mistake? What is it all about Huxtable, do you have a problem with Torquay United?
I have been watching the Gulls for over 50 years and have seen good refs, bad refs and ok refs at Plainmoor. Huxtable is the worst by a country mile. Even worse than Darren Deadman, who is appalling. Huxtable thinks he can ref in the Premiership one day, he clearly has a strange sense of humour. If you want to be a top referee Huxtabkle then go away , retrain and change your approach completely. It is NOT all about YOU, referees are supposed to be part of the backdrop making the game tick over quietly and confidently. We don't need people with big egos as referees, it makes the game a pathetic display of referee power not a sporting spectacle.
Game after game when Huxtable has refereed a Torquay match he has screwed up, and not in our favour. Mistakes are human, referees make them and we should understand this. But mistake after mistake after mistake? What is it all about Huxtable, do you have a problem with Torquay United?
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Portugull, obviously there was confusion at yesterday's game, but common sense did not prevail. The proposed rules (a) to (e) are my own suggestions, in order to prevent any future confusions.
-
DJ Gull
- Out on Loan
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 03 Feb 2014, 09:54
- Favourite player: Kevin Hill
- Location: Newton Abbot
- Contact:
portugull wrote:Thank you Gullscorer.Are you saying these are the FA Rules or are you saying these should be the rules?
If they are the FA Rules why do they need clarifying?
If they are as you state the Referee was WRONG and I hope the Club will make a very strong complaint about the referee who as I have said in another post is the worst referee I have seen in 60 years.He should NEVER referee at this level again.
I think you made a slight error in that last sentence, I believe you meant, 'He should NEVER referee again!
To the dotted line, We're on our way
-
portugull
- Plays for Country
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 19:27
- Favourite player: lee mansell
- Location: Teignmouth
- Watches from: Bristow’s Bench
Gullscorer, this is completely different to the first post. As these are the Rules you would like to see and NOT the current Rules then Huxtable was correct.
However the KEY point is this. When Kenny Veysey gave the "piece of paper" to the 4th official did he confirm No 7 (Briscoe) was being replaced or No 17 (Fisher)
It is as simple as that.If Veysey marked No 7 then the 4th official made the error not TUFC.
However the KEY point is this. When Kenny Veysey gave the "piece of paper" to the 4th official did he confirm No 7 (Briscoe) was being replaced or No 17 (Fisher)
It is as simple as that.If Veysey marked No 7 then the 4th official made the error not TUFC.
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Well, according to Ferrarilover: "Seen the evidence, not even a question about it, it's VERY obviously a seven."portugull wrote:Gullscorer, this is completely different to the first post. As these are the Rules you would like to see and NOT the current Rules then Huxtable was correct.
However the KEY point is this. When Kenny Veysey gave the "piece of paper" to the 4th official did he confirm No 7 (Briscoe) was being replaced or No 17 (Fisher)
It is as simple as that.If Veysey marked No 7 then the 4th official made the error not TUFC.
As to my posts, if you read them again carefully, you will see that they are not at all different in meaning.
My first post said: "Current FA rules state: ...", and: "But the FA should clarify the appropriate laws ...... as follows:.... (a) to (e)."
My second post confirmed that the proposed rules (a) to (e) are my own suggestions.
That all seems clear enough to me; in no way could one post be interpreted as contradicting the other.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: gullsgullsgulls, Yellow6 and 42 guests
