DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73061--------------------------------------------------
J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: Ryanellis
Date: December 28, 2023, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought he was ok last night. The penalty for City was given
by AR1 Lee Betts after John didn’t have a good view of the
incident (as shown by many cameras) but then was also surrounded
by City players complaining for a handball. Therefore, at least
one of them should’ve been booked under the new rules (that seem
to have gone out the window, surprise!)
Yellow cards were executed perfectly and no need for many
complaints.
Manchester City had to substitute Stones for an injury as he had
a small collision with Beto after a late offside flag by Lee
Betts. He can’t do anything and following the rules however
leaving flags to be put up late always had the potential to
cause an injury- and yesterday that happened.
#Post#: 73062--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: ajb95
Date: December 28, 2023, 3:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought the penalty was harsh on the highlights but cannot
comment on the overall performance as I was watching Chelsea v
palace where another harsh penalty was given on review by
Michael Salisbury
#Post#: 73063--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: Mikael W
Date: December 28, 2023, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I understand it must have been a very stressful moment for
Brooks, but not issuing even one caution to the
aggressively-mobbing Manchester City players is hard to accept.
The crackdown on dissent for the 'imaginery card' gesture seems
to go on unabaited, but the surrounding of officials seems to go
much more unpunished; it would be a much better situation if
that was reversed, imo.
Both Brooks' and Salisbury's penalties were very clear in my
eyes and the correct decision was ultimately reached after (V)AR
assistance in both cases.
#Post#: 73065--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: December 28, 2023, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> I thought the penalty was harsh on the highlights but cannot
comment on the overall performance as I was watching Chelsea v
palace where another harsh penalty was given on review by
Michael Salisbury
>
--- End Quote ---
The penalty against Palace was “harsh”?!
It was one of the most obvious and clear penalties all season.
The contact hyperextended the attacker’s knee. Palace players
knew (which is why they didn’t complain), the Chelsea players
knew (which is why they were furious) and everyone in the ground
- plus the commentators - knew it was a penalty.
The bigger issue here is whether the safety net of VAR is
stopping officials making decisions because I find it very hard
to believe that a referee looking at that challenge from 7 yards
away does not instantly give a penalty, and I think pre-VAR he
would have done.
#Post#: 73066--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: December 28, 2023, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good teamwork for the penalty, think Brooks is just unlucky he
can’t see it but his view was blocked but great jump in from Lee
Betts
#Post#: 73068--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: Claretman
Date: December 28, 2023, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ryanellis link ---
>
> I thought he was ok last night. The penalty for City was given
by AR1 Lee Betts after John didn’t have a good view of the
incident (as shown by many cameras) but then was also surrounded
by City players complaining for a handball. Therefore, at least
one of them should’ve been booked under the new rules (that seem
to have gone out the window, surprise!)
> Yellow cards were executed perfectly and no need for many
complaints.
> Manchester City had to substitute Stones for an injury as he
had a small collision with Beto after a late offside flag by Lee
Betts. He can’t do anything and following the rules however
leaving flags to be put up late always had the potential to
cause an injury- and yesterday that happened.
>
--- End Quote ---
But a late flag may avoid a genuine goal being disallowed
incorrectly, which do you want, you cant have both.
#Post#: 73078--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: ajb95
Date: December 28, 2023, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Marvin Grapevine link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=5525.msg73062#msg73062
date=1703755106]
> I thought the penalty was harsh on the highlights but cannot
comment on the overall performance as I was watching Chelsea v
palace where another harsh penalty was given on review by
Michael Salisbury
>
--- End Quote ---
The penalty against Palace was “harsh”?!
It was one of the most obvious and clear penalties all season.
The contact hyperextended the attacker’s knee. Palace players
knew (which is why they didn’t complain), the Chelsea players
knew (which is why they were furious) and everyone in the ground
- plus the commentators - knew it was a penalty.
The bigger issue here is whether the safety net of VAR is
stopping officials making decisions because I find it very hard
to believe that a referee looking at that challenge from 7 yards
away does not instantly give a penalty, and I think pre-VAR he
would have done.
[/quote]
No the penalty against Everton was harsh. The Chelsea penalty
imo was a penalty. But similar incidents haven’t met the
criteria for review at the screen so comes back to the good old
debate about consistency and clear and obvious errors
#Post#: 73081--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: December 28, 2023, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On the whole, I’ve been impressed with Brooks this season, he
certainly has the potential to reach elite if he can eliminate
the lack of cards as described above for dissent as an example.
I don’t think he can reach the Michael Oliver heights in terms
of his raw ability, but he is probably the best we have up and
coming when Taylor loses his badge.
#Post#: 73083--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: Leggy
Date: December 28, 2023, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Marvin Grapevine link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=5525.msg73062#msg73062
date=1703755106]
> I thought the penalty was harsh on the highlights but cannot
comment on the overall performance as I was watching Chelsea v
palace where another harsh penalty was given on review by
Michael Salisbury
>
--- End Quote ---
The penalty against Palace was “harsh”?!
It was one of the most obvious and clear penalties all season.
The contact hyperextended the attacker’s knee. Palace players
knew (which is why they didn’t complain), the Chelsea players
knew (which is why they were furious) and everyone in the ground
- plus the commentators - knew it was a penalty.
The bigger issue here is whether the safety net of VAR is
stopping officials making decisions because I find it very hard
to believe that a referee looking at that challenge from 7 yards
away does not instantly give a penalty, and I think pre-VAR he
would have done.
[/quote]
I have said previously that VAR is taking perfectly good
referees who have reached the top of their profession by using
their skill, positioning, experience and judgement to get more
key decisions right than their peers and making them scared to
make the big calls.
I have been told that this is not the case because it means a
KMI error and a maximum mark of 7.9 (or something like that).
But the evidence is mounting up and the instances of penalty
kicks (not handball!) and - more worryingly - cases of serious
foul play being missed by Premier League referees suggest that
(sub-consciously at least) I may not be as wrong as some think I
am.
#Post#: 73084--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks - Everton v Manchester City
DIR By: PhiltheRef
Date: December 28, 2023, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally I thought his cautions were a tad inconsistent, much
quicker to caution Everton than Manchester City players for
virtually identical transgressions
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page