DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98649--------------------------------------------------
J Brooks (VAR M Salisbury) - Brentford v Leeds United
DIR By: Ref25
Date: December 14, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting VAR overturn for a penalty awarded on field to
Brentford for a holding offence.
As Brentford send a ball towards the back post, the referee has
adjudged the defender to have held the attacker. Both are moving
towards the dropping zone, the ball has not been played by the
attacker and the holding begins not long after the cross is
played in.
VAR has confirmed the holding / penalty kick, but has
recommended a factual overturn for the offside. John Brooks was
not sent to the screen. The explanation given by John Brooks
was:
“After review, the Brentford number 19 who was fouled is in an
offside position. Therefore the final decision is an indirect
free kick”.
Law 11 states:
In situations where:
• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is
in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of
the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it
impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for
the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and
impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the
offence should be penalised under Law 12
• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball
with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before
playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an
opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred
before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside
position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball,
or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is
penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
I think it’s debatable whether the Brentford attacker has
interfered with the defender before the foul occurs. I’d say not
because they are both simply running towards a ball that is
nowhere near them, but you could argue the attacker is
preventing the defender from getting to the dropping zone by
their movement. Given the ball is not close, I don’t think the
attacker has factually affected the defender’s ability to play /
challenge for the ball.
Whatever the right outcome is, I would have thought the decision
had to be an on field review, because there was no offside flag
raised and it is a subjective decision as to whether the
attacker has interfered with an opponent for the offside.
Fans may think from the announcement that if a player in an
offside position is fouled, there can’t be a penalty. That’s
isn’t the case though, and perhaps there needed to be more to it
(e.g. offside position and interferes with the defender).
#Post#: 98660--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks (VAR M Salisbury) - Brentford v Leeds United
DIR By: sastley
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Two issues from John Brooks.
Firstly the penalty award to Brentford was very harsh and I
think wrong not enough contact to make the attacker fall to the
ground. Saved by VAR and the offside.
Secondly a penalty claim later for a pull on Calvert Lewin
causing him to all to the ground not given. Much more obvious
penalty than the first one.
Two very inconsistent decisions both wrong, IMO.
#Post#: 98661--------------------------------------------------
Re: J Brooks (VAR M Salisbury) - Brentford v Leeds United
DIR By: Leggy
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Intersting indeed.
I guess the unanswered question is what would have happened
between the two players if the attacking player had not been in
an offside position. Would the defender have had a clearer path
towards the ball and - given that - no need to commit the
holding offence. I am not saying that is what would have
happened, but in those circumstances the offside position has
led to the holding offence.
Also, on a point pf pedantry, John Brooks' explanation should
have said that the Brentford number 19 was committing an offside
offence (as opposed to just being in an offside position).
Finally, I am not sure that the penalty award was "nailed on".
It was very much a "referee's call" with VAR staying out of that
decision either way (i.e. penalty or no penalty).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1