DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98944--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: December 21, 2025, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=7534.msg98939#msg98939
date=1766348822]
> [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?
[/quote]
I think that most contributors who have commented on this topic
would have watched most of the game and at the very least, like
myself, saw the key incidents.
People have different opinions and we don’t have to agree on
what we thought of John Brooks’ performance. That’s what a forum
is for we agree and disagree.
#Post#: 98945--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Adam
Date: December 21, 2025, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=7534.msg98939#msg98939
date=1766348822]
> [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?
[/quote]
I did.
--- Quote from: TA_Ref link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Madness link=topic=7534.msg98942#msg98942
date=1766352550]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=7534.msg98939#msg98939
date=1766348822]
> [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?
[/quote]
I think that most contributors who have commented on this topic
would have watched most of the game and at the very least, like
myself, saw the key incidents.
People have different opinions and we don’t have to agree on
what we thought of John Brooks’ performance. That’s what a forum
is for we agree and disagree.
[/quote]
I agree completely with both points. However there's a
difference between commenting on a performance and blaming the
referee and saying he is the single catalyst for the dreadful
behaviour of those playing for and managing Spurs ("marred by
the man in the middle"). That's a comment that just is not right
or fair, it's a stab at the competency and respectability of
referees, and I for one think it's a step too far and beyond an
opinion on the game.
#Post#: 98948--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: El Referee
Date: December 21, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Madness link ---
>
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=7534.msg98939#msg98939
date=1766348822]
> [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?
[/quote]
Maybe a bit off topic; but if you’ve never refereed a game of
football, how have you ran the line hundreds of times at
semi-pro?
#Post#: 98949--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Jtd508110
Date: December 21, 2025, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought that Brooks did well overall. Yes he missed the RC
(his AR was very close to it and maybe influenced the on field
decision?), but overall, he handled the game better than most
would.
I've said previously that I'm not a fan of Brooks' style of
officiating. I have previously thought he was too robotic and
didn't naturally command the respect of the players. However,
since his return from injury, I have been impressed with him.
I'm hoping that I can say the same about Tierney once he has a
few more PL games under his belt.
#Post#: 98950--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: TillysDad
Date: December 22, 2025, 12:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having watched the whole match back I would say the following.
Gould detection throughout the match was inconsistent.
Penalised Spence for a foul on Bradley when it appeared that
Bradley just lost his footing,other times letting pulling go
Simons Red Card seemed correct although not as bad as some
people are saying,fleeting contact with the studs on the calf,no
contact on the Achilles as other posters have said.
Clear 2 handed push into Romeros’ back who’s feet were off the
ground so pushed under the ball
No excuse for the reaction and yellow card that followed.
2nd yellow,mindless from Romero
Alleged grab off the throat by Richalison,although a stupid
thing to do,it was the back of the neck!!
9 minutes of added time,a goal,an injury to Frimpong,2 Subs,Only
1 added minute!
Overall not a good showing from Brooks
#Post#: 98956--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Scally Bob
Date: December 22, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I’m the only poster who said the lunge and scissors
challenge on Isak deserved a red card. It was excessive force
and the evidence that it endangered an opponent isn’t debatable
as Isak is being treated for a suspected fracture.
Was it simply ignored because the ball went into the net? In the
middle of the pitch that would have been a red card although I’m
not sure Saturday’s referee would have brandished one as he
missed the first and only gave a second yellow for an act of
violent conduct.
#Post#: 98957--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: December 22, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scally Bob link ---
>
> I think I’m the only poster who said the lunge and scissors
challenge on Isak deserved a red card. It was excessive force
and the evidence that it endangered an opponent isn’t debatable
as Isak is being treated for a suspected fracture.
>
> Was it simply ignored because the ball went into the net? In
the middle of the pitch that would have been a red card although
I’m not sure Saturday’s referee would have brandished one as he
missed the first and only gave a second yellow for an act of
violent conduct.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are certainly not the only poster. In fact I thought I'd
posted something similar at the same time but it's not appeared.
I appreciate that the extent of an injury doesn't necessarily
imply a bad foul, but that challenge was late, two-footed, at
speed, excessive force, out of control and endangered an
opponent. How many more boxes did it need to tick?
For once, I found myself agreeing with Jay Boothroyd on RefWatch
and was surprised Dermott was so dismissive of the suggestion.
I'd be interested in the arguments against it being a RC.
#Post#: 98958--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Adam
Date: December 22, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> [quote author=Scally Bob link=topic=7534.msg98956#msg98956
date=1766403404]
> I think I’m the only poster who said the lunge and scissors
challenge on Isak deserved a red card. It was excessive force
and the evidence that it endangered an opponent isn’t debatable
as Isak is being treated for a suspected fracture.
>
> Was it simply ignored because the ball went into the net? In
the middle of the pitch that would have been a red card although
I’m not sure Saturday’s referee would have brandished one as he
missed the first and only gave a second yellow for an act of
violent conduct.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are certainly not the only poster. In fact I thought I'd
posted something similar at the same time but it's not appeared.
I appreciate that the extent of an injury doesn't necessarily
imply a bad foul, but that challenge was late, two-footed, at
speed, excessive force, out of control and endangered an
opponent. How many more boxes did it need to tick?
For once, I found myself agreeing with Jay Boothroyd on RefWatch
and was surprised Dermott was so dismissive of the suggestion.
I'd be interested in the arguments against it being a RC.
[/quote]
The more I think about it, there's a case for the following red
cards:
Simons on VVD (100%, I think we are all in agreement)
Romero for either 2YC or RC (I think he should've been sent for
a straight red)
Richarlison for grabbing whoever's neck it was that he grabbed
(we've seen RC for less of a VC)
The raving looney on Spurs backroom team who was jumping around
and shouting like a deranged person all game and conducting the
crowd (weak 4O from Anthony Taylor, can't believe he got away
with only a YC)
Bentancurs wild tackle on the near touchline (again, excessive
force, no intention to play the ball, is intense, ticks a lot of
boxes)
Van de Ven (looking back it is a scissors tackle, I think
dangerous but we don't see them given, however I think they
should be, Pickford on VVD esque).
There's an argument there for 5 straight red cards on field and
1 off it, that's disgraceful, while I accept not all of them
will be agreed on as red cards, the fact that we are discussing
the possibility of 6 incidents that could've seen red over an
100 minute period of game is shocking.
#Post#: 98961--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: bmb
Date: December 22, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen the game or the highlights other than the brutal
assault on Milos which is all over the Hungarian press. Should
have been straight to jail for that let alone a card of any
colour!
#Post#: 98962--------------------------------------------------
Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: December 22, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dale Johnson has had his view on the Isak challenge, Simons red
card and the Ekitike goal and to cut a long story short, he
feels Brooks and the VAR got it right.
Re. the challenge on Isak: "As Isak releases the shot, Van de
Ven slides in to try to make a block. Crucially, it is Isak's
shooting foot that gets injured after he plants it. The foot
lands between Van de Ven's legs, and that is how the Sweden
striker's injury appears to happen.
Had Van de Ven gone through Isak's standing foot or tackled his
opponent directly this would have been a different discussion.
But Van de Ven goes to make a block into the space in front of
Isak. It was a genuine challenge and should not be seen as a red
card."
Re. Liverpool's goal, "Ekitike's hands were on Romero, but there
did not appear to be any force applied to foul the defender. It
looked like a strong, powerful header."
Regarding the Simons challenge he agrees, red. He then compares
it with the Garnacho challenge earlier in the day "But what
about a possible red card for Alejandro Garnacho earlier in the
day? The Chelsea forward only received a caution for his foul on
Newcastle's Jacob Ramsey. The decision of referee Andy Madley
was supported by the VAR Peter Bankes.
There are some important differences to consider. The ball was
in playing distance when Garnacho started the challenge. While
he did then lead into Ramsey with his studs there was no force
or intensity - and only a small amount of contact.
If a player is stepping into a tackle and mistimes it slightly a
caution is seen as an acceptable disciplinary outcome, even if
initial contact is above the boot.
Challenges from behind, as with Simons, where there is no
possibility of getting to the ball are far more likely to result
in a red card
Maybe Brooks deserves more credit than he is getting?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page