DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98901--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Arbitre anglais
Date: December 21, 2025, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From MoTD highlights, I agree with the pundit and think
Bendacour should also have gone. Charged over with zero
intention of challenging for the ball and piled into the
Liverpool player - Millimeters from shoulder to the face.
Endagered the safety of the opponent (deliberately) and
definitely SFP for me.
Very poor show of discipline from Spurs who seemed to have just
lost their heads completely. Didn’t see whole game, but from
highlights, seemed to be one of those times where it’s not
really referee’s fault - can only try to prevent - but if a team
are wild like that, he can only dole out the cards afterwards.
#Post#: 98906--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Leggy
Date: December 21, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The first sending off was correct (in the end). It was unusual
because these sorts of tackles are normally a player
over-stretching to get / retrieve the ball and, therefore,
somewhat out of control. In this case the Spurs player was not
trying to get / retrieve the ball but close down the opponent
who slowed down and his foot found itself scraping down the back
of the ankle / calf. It is similar (well sort of!) to someone
hitting a car from behind because it has slowed down. Its
always the driver who runs in to the back of the car ahead's
fault and - in this case - it was the Spurs' player's fault.
Regardless of the the circumstances, his "tackle" endangered the
safety of an opponent and should have been sanctioned as SFP.
It is disappointing that - once again - a top referee needs VAR
to help sport SFP.
The scond sending off was for two yellow cards. His contact was
more substancial than Beckham's in the 1998 World Cup so
probably should have been a straight red card.
For Thomas Frank to blame the referee for the second sending off
was 100% deflection from his and his team's shortcomings. His
"logic" - if you can call it that - was that the referee made a
"huge error" by not disallowing the Liverpool goal. The
referee's "huge error" was his justification for the dissent
that led to the first yellow card. Even if one agreed that the
goal should have been disallowed (I don't and not many others
did) that is no justification for dissent. Its a cautionable
offence regardless of the accuracy of the referee's decision.
Ironically, Spurs looked to be a better side with ten - and then
nine - players that they did with eleven. I am not sure if that
says more about Spurs or Liverpool?
#Post#: 98909--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: December 21, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> [quote author=greeny link=topic=7534.msg98871#msg98871
date=1766259045]
> Brooks gave Simons a yellow before it was upgraded after VAR.
Another case of a referee missing an incident of SFP in real
time.
>
> Romero can have absolutely no complaints, a complete moment of
madness.
>
> Anthony Taylor has had Thomas Franke in his ear for most of
the match.
>
--- End Quote ---
.
[/quote]
Sorry? Romero was ‘controversially and debatably’ sent off for a
ridiculous challenge by him that used excessive force and
endangered his safety.
I think I’ll have to disagree with that one.
#Post#: 98910--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Ref Madness
Date: December 21, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TA_Ref link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Madness link=topic=7534.msg98907#msg98907
date=1766320339]
> [quote author=greeny link=topic=7534.msg98871#msg98871
date=1766259045]
> Brooks gave Simons a yellow before it was upgraded after VAR.
Another case of a referee missing an incident of SFP in real
time.
>
> Romero can have absolutely no complaints, a complete moment of
madness.
>
> Anthony Taylor has had Thomas Franke in his ear for most of
the match.
>
--- End Quote ---
Removed not constructive .
[/quote]
Sorry? Romero was ‘controversially and debatably’ sent off for a
ridiculous challenge by him that used excessive force and
endangered his safety.
I think I’ll have to disagree with that one.
[/quote]
The Chelsea incident a few years ago yes, as he won the ball
from memory. Was not universally accepted whatsoever.
#Post#: 98913--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: ARF
Date: December 21, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm a little bemused with the number of comments that Romero's
second caution should have been a straight red for violent
conduct. The mentality that 'any force whatsoever when not
challenging for the ball is automatically excessive' is a thing
of the past - or the additional paragraph in the LotG regarding
negligible/non-negligible force when deliberately striking the
head/face wouldn't be necessary.
#Post#: 98916--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: ARF
Date: December 21, 2025, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=7534.msg98913#msg98913
date=1766321433]
> I'm a little bemused with the number of comments that Romero's
second caution should have been a straight red for violent
conduct. The mentality that 'any force whatsoever when not
challenging for the ball is automatically excessive' is a thing
of the past - or the additional paragraph in the LotG regarding
negligible/non-negligible force when deliberately striking the
head/face wouldn't be necessary.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
A player showing dissent is still a caution though, whether the
decision is ultimately right or wrong. I don't think players
should be excused for their lack of self-discipline just because
they disagree with a decision.
#Post#: 98937--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Ref Madness
Date: December 21, 2025, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Madness link=topic=7534.msg98915#msg98915
date=1766321707]
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=7534.msg98913#msg98913
date=1766321433]
> I'm a little bemused with the number of comments that Romero's
second caution should have been a straight red for violent
conduct. The mentality that 'any force whatsoever when not
challenging for the ball is automatically excessive' is a thing
of the past - or the additional paragraph in the LotG regarding
negligible/non-negligible force when deliberately striking the
head/face wouldn't be necessary.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
A player showing dissent is still a caution though, whether the
decision is ultimately right or wrong. I don't think players
should be excused for their lack of self-discipline just because
they disagree with a decision.
[/quote]
Agreed for sure, albeit Romero is supposedly a “captain” so does
have the right to question the official as per the LOTG. I
think though, as I’ve said on this thread, if you see the whole
of this match and understand the context, you’ll see exactly why
the frustration boiled over in such a way. Explains it, doesn’t
excuse it though.
#Post#: 98938--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Ref Madness
Date: December 21, 2025, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very very confused why a few of my review posts have been
removed, so I will make one point again as it’s a very relevant
one that cannot be ignored.
The behaviour of the likes of Frank (one of the league’s calmest
coaches obviously), Romero and co here, was due to the way
Brooks officiated and treated both captains from the coin toss
and the beginning of the game with soft free kicks etc. Needs
highlighting as a reason for the way everything lost control,
from both the officials and some of the Spurs team. A dreadful
game marred by the man in the middle unfortunately.
Very odd the amendments on this site, am quite perplexed and
quite sad about being silenced like that actually.
#Post#: 98939--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Adam
Date: December 21, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> Very very confused why a few of my review posts have been
removed, so I will make one point again as it’s a very relevant
one that cannot be ignored.
>
> The behaviour of the likes of Frank (one of the league’s
calmest coaches obviously), Romero and co here, was due to the
way Brooks officiated and treated both captains from the coin
toss and the beginning of the game with soft free kicks etc.
Needs highlighting as a reason for the way everything lost
control, from both the officials and some of the Spurs team. A
dreadful game marred by the man in the middle unfortunately.
>
> Very odd the amendments on this site, am quite perplexed and
quite sad about being silenced like that actually.
>
--- End Quote ---
A genuine question? Have you ever refereed a game of football?
Because as I'm sure most refs would know and feel, John Brooks
is absolutely not the reason for the absolute disgraceful
behaviour and attitude that was Spurs last night.
I actually commend and admire John, he'd have known the drama
and contentiousness that this game has caused in the past few
years, and he could've snapped back into his old ways of putting
on a very authoritarian display and pulling up the softest of
fouls. But he didn't, and it did admittedly get a bit
inconsistent and uncomfortable at times in terms of putting in a
good performance, but that is nothing to to with the Spurs
headloss.
Brooks gave the players the opportunity and showed respect in
attempting to let them play a free flowing game of football,
unfortunately the players, mainly in white, gave him nothing but
disrespect and childishness back, and that is absolutely beyond
his control.
Suggesting he is at fault for Spurs actions, is in fact
laughable, and something that any semi-compotent referee would
never ever say, I'm sorry.
#Post#: 98942--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Ref Madness
Date: December 21, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Adam link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Madness link=topic=7534.msg98938#msg98938
date=1766348204]
> Very very confused why a few of my review posts have been
removed, so I will make one point again as it’s a very relevant
one that cannot be ignored.
>
> The behaviour of the likes of Frank (one of the league’s
calmest coaches obviously), Romero and co here, was due to the
way Brooks officiated and treated both captains from the coin
toss and the beginning of the game with soft free kicks etc.
Needs highlighting as a reason for the way everything lost
control, from both the officials and some of the Spurs team. A
dreadful game marred by the man in the middle unfortunately.
>
> Very odd the amendments on this site, am quite perplexed and
quite sad about being silenced like that actually.
>
--- End Quote ---
A genuine question? Have you ever refereed a game of football?
Because as I'm sure most refs would know and feel, John Brooks
is absolutely not the reason for the absolute disgraceful
behaviour and attitude that was Spurs last night.
I actually commend and admire John, he'd have known the drama
and contentiousness that this game has caused in the past few
years, and he could've snapped back into his old ways of putting
on a very authoritarian display and pulling up the softest of
fouls. But he didn't, and it did admittedly get a bit
inconsistent and uncomfortable at times in terms of putting in a
good performance, but that is nothing to to with the Spurs
headloss.
Brooks gave the players the opportunity and showed respect in
attempting to let them play a free flowing game of football,
unfortunately the players, mainly in white, gave him nothing but
disrespect and childishness back, and that is absolutely beyond
his control.
Suggesting he is at fault for Spurs actions, is in fact
laughable, and something that any semi-compotent referee would
never ever say, I'm sorry.
[/quote]
I’ll answer your question first then you answer mine …. no I
haven’t but I know the laws of the game off by heart, have been
linesman hundreds of times at semi pro level, and have been to
thousands of live games at my local team.
Now my question … did you watch the entirety of this game?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page