A&H

Ars v Liv

Well, it would probably be an 8.2 in old money. Overall as expected, not a remarkable moment worth extra, but quite straightforward missed yellows. Also not a difficult match and not really a hig decision to make. But it would be harsh to call it any easy game. Foul tolerance was really good, balanced and suited the teams.

If there was any one area I’d want to look at and learn from it would be the holding by both teams at corners and free kicks. It was so extreme that the referee should have done at least one ceremonial warning. More highlights that it is very hard to control if you have ten players cuddling each other simultaneously!
 
The Referee Store
I think Brooks had a pretty good game, but the lack of consistency of dissent cautions is frustrating. I don't buy that Elliotts physical dissent was any worse than Odegaards, and he did it on 2 occasions.
 
RustyRef said:
Is it get on Rusty's back night? 😂

Speaking as an observer, with absolutely no skin in the game, he had an outstanding game in what could have become very difficult to referee. You say 5/10, that means he would never, ever referee again at any senior level, it is basically impossible to get that low a mark. So no, it isn't opinions really. Aside from potential missed dissent, which probably won't affect the mark anyway, what did he get wrong?
Click to expand...

I wasn't giving him an assessment.
It would be awfully dull of us to argue about a 0.5 laws of the game mark difference.
Fine, I'll give him 67/100 in assessor land.

He also missed at least two easy USB cautions and some of the worst holding in the box I've seen this season.
 
I actually thought he had a good game. Noticed nothing he shouldn't have done, with the exception of (should) maybe giving a card to Odegaard.

Have to laugh at the fan pages who come out with spectacular stories to shock people claiming they've got inside scoop on PGMOL and their "daily" apologies.
This one made me laugh. Screenshot_20240108-083846.png
 
RustyRef said:
OK, there might have been a couple of dissent cautions missed, although I would argue that Elliot's arm throwing was far more aggressive and pronounced than Jorgino's or Odegaard's. But that aside John Brooks refereed that game absolutely superbly, he's kept it flowing, been very consistent with what contact to give and let go, and really kept a very entertaining game flowing.
Click to expand...
Someone has done a neat compilation BTW

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744200504379351464

Still stand by that argument?
 
GraemeS said:
Someone has done a neat compilation BTW

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744200504379351464

Still stand by that argument?
Click to expand...
Yes, pretty much. Odegaard's were waving arms around and in the air but not throwing it towards the referee aside from a dismissive flick of the arm. Elliot's is far more an arm thrown towards the referee, very similar to the two Dalot cautions that got him sent off. I do think they've given a directive that if a player does that they must be cautioned.

I'm not saying that Odegaard shouldn't have been cautioned, but his actions are subtly different from Elliot's.
 
There's 4 clips in there. So are we talking the first or second of Odegaard's extended tantrums? And also, no comment on Jorginho? Who to my eye is almost identical to Elliot but with an addition "**** off" and from much closer to the ref than Elliot would have been
 
GraemeS said:
There's 4 clips in there. So are we talking the first or second of Odegaard's extended tantrums? And also, no comment on Jorginho? Who to my eye is almost identical to Elliot but with an addition "**** off" and from much closer to the ref than Elliot would have been
Click to expand...
Jorginho's is absolutely nothing like Elliot's. He makes a kicking motion to say he was kicked, gobs off and then rolls the ball away. Where did he move his arm towards the referee in a throwing motion like Elliot did? Am I watching a totally different clip?
 
"Gobs off" being code for "clearly swears directly at the referee from 10 yards away"? Good job trying to minimise and gloss over that!

I genuinely don't think it's unfair to class it as one player with two extended visible outburst of dissent, another who's clearly sworn directly at the ref and a third who has briefly reacted to a decision. If you were shown those 3 players with no context and told only one was booked, Elliot would be the sensible third choice.
 
GraemeS said:
"Gobs off" being code for "clearly swears directly at the referee from 10 yards away"? Good job trying to minimise and gloss over that!

I genuinely don't think it's unfair to class it as one player with two extended visible outburst of dissent, another who's clearly sworn directly at the ref and a third who has briefly reacted to a decision. If you were shown those 3 players with no context and told only one was booked, Elliot would be the sensible third choice.
Click to expand...
I agree that there was a more than reasonable case for at least one additional dissent caution. This would have certainly helped the 'balance' perception and been completely supportable. That said, I believe that overall this was a top drawer refereeing performance, delivering an enjoyable free flowing game to watch whilst never letting things get out of hand.

With specific reference to the 'obvious swearing'. It was only the fact that this happened to be caught on camera that made it 'obvious'. So I can totally understand the officiating team wishing to 'manage' this ... first priority is to deal with the various forms of non verbal dissent which are often extremely obvious to all inside and outside the ground
 
The Jorginho one I can live without being a caution. But I don't see how Elliott was worse than Odegaard. Especially Odegaards first bout of dissent. He has more than one pop in that scenario, at both AR & Brooks.
 
Russell Jones said:
I agree that there was a more than reasonable case for at least one additional dissent caution. This would have certainly helped the 'balance' perception and been completely supportable. That said, I believe that overall this was a top drawer refereeing performance, delivering an enjoyable free flowing game to watch whilst never letting things get out of hand.
Click to expand...
As I said before, agree completely. Which is why it's even more disappointing for him to get such basics wrong - he was three obvious cautions (we all seem to have moved on from White vs Jones) away from a near-perfect game in a really difficult context. And he messed it up on the easy bits while doing all the hard bits well.

Russell Jones said:
With specific reference to the 'obvious swearing'. It was only the fact that this happened to be caught on camera that made it 'obvious'. So I can totally understand the officiating team wishing to 'manage' this ... first priority is to deal with the various forms of non verbal dissent which are often extremely obvious to all inside and outside the ground
Click to expand...
But this is where the argument gets tied in knots specifically because of these two incidents. Odegaard twice had extended tantrums complete with arm throwing and visible dissent by action. So even if we accept that there's a de facto "swear at refs as much as you want, just don't be animated while doing it" rule in the PL, he still got it wrong.
 
GraemeS said:
"Gobs off" being code for "clearly swears directly at the referee from 10 yards away"? Good job trying to minimise and gloss over that!

I genuinely don't think it's unfair to class it as one player with two extended visible outburst of dissent, another who's clearly sworn directly at the ref and a third who has briefly reacted to a decision. If you were shown those 3 players with no context and told only one was booked, Elliot would be the sensible third choice.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your direct point, which you haven't answered. Were you a politician in a former life? 😂

So I'll ask it again. Did Jorginho throw his arm towards the referee like Elliot did? And like Dalot did twice and got cautioned for both? And other players have done that and been cautioned.
 
RustyRef said:
I was responding to your direct point, which you haven't answered. Were you a politician in a former life? 😂

So I'll ask it again. Did Jorginho throw his arm towards the referee like Elliot did? And like Dalot did twice and got cautioned for both? And other players have done that and been cautioned.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about politician answers, how about where I post a video with 4 clips and you somehow manage not to notice two of them?

I accept Elliot ticks enough boxes for a booking. But if that's the bar, how are you possibly still defending no card for the other two players? You're trying to draw comparisons with other matches, but the inconsistency here is within the one game.
 
GraemeS said:
If we're talking about politician answers, how about where I post a video with 4 clips and you somehow manage not to notice two of them?

I accept Elliot ticks enough boxes for a booking. But if that's the bar, how are you possibly still defending no card for the other two players? You're trying to draw comparisons with other matches, but the inconsistency here is within the one game.
Click to expand...
So I didn't say this then ... ?

RustyRef said:
I'm not saying that Odegaard shouldn't have been cautioned, but his actions are subtly different from Elliot's.
Click to expand...

You absolutely did say ...
GraemeS said:
And also, no comment on Jorginho? Who to my eye is almost identical to Elliot but with an addition "**** off" and from much closer to the ref than Elliot would have been
Click to expand...
Don't disagree that Jorginho added an **** off, but how else were his actions in any way comparable to Elliott's? So come on then, I've answered my question, how about you?
 
RustyRef said:
So I didn't say this then ... ?



You absolutely did say ...

Don't disagree that Jorginho added an **** off, but how else were his actions in any way comparable to Elliott's? So come on then, I've answered my question, how about you?
Click to expand...
Go back to the very first post in the thread where it's described that way. The obsession with the exact detail of the dissent and OFFINABUS doesn't in any way stop it being that, it's weasly that you're now hyper-fixating on the exact description to try and deflect from the clear offence it is.

There's a flick of the arm even in that clip (which could easily be the end of a larger gesture that got lost in the cut, but it doesn't actually matter). There's a frustrated kick. And oh yes, there's the swearing at the ref.

You know what, you're right - it's not a missed caution. It's a missed sending off. I accept your correction.

But sure, great performance from the ref.
 
GraemeS said:
Go back to the very first post in the thread where it's described that way. The obsession with the exact detail of the dissent and OFFINABUS doesn't in any way stop it being that, it's weasly that you're now hyper-fixating on the exact description to try and deflect from the clear offence it is.

There's a flick of the arm even in that clip (which could easily be the end of a larger gesture that got lost in the cut, but it doesn't actually matter). There's a frustrated kick. And oh yes, there's the swearing at the ref.

You know what, you're right - it's not a missed caution. It's a missed sending off. I accept your correction.

But sure, great performance from the ref.
Click to expand...
You're deliberately twisting things, don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse or just trolling, but I give up trying to explain. I haven't said it wasn't a missed caution, but you are clearly incapable of reading that as it doesn't match your narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top