Journalist Slams ‘Appalling’ Refereeing Performance in Liverpool’s Victory Over Chelsea | OneFootball

John Brooks’ Refereeing in Liverpool vs Chelsea: David Lynch’s Critical Take

Liverpool’s 2-1 victory over Chelsea was not without controversy, as referee John Brooks found himself at the centre of several contentious decisions. Speaking on Anfield Index’s Media Matters podcast, David Lynch offered his candid assessment of Brooks’ performance, highlighting moments of inconsistency and poor game management that left many questioning the officiating on the day.

Inconsistent Decision-Making

Lynch’s primary critique of Brooks revolved around his inconsistency throughout the match. “I didn’t think he was very good at all,” Lynch remarked, reflecting the frustration of both fans and players. Early in the game, Brooks allowed several 50/50 challenges to go unpunished, which set a lenient tone. However, Lynch pointed out that as the match progressed, Brooks began arbitrarily pulling back similar challenges, often penalising Liverpool in the process.

Lynch was particularly critical of a key moment when Diogo Jota appeared to have been unfairly stopped by a weak call, which he described as a “very, very weak one.” This decision shifted momentum, leading to a string of fouls given against Liverpool in situations that should have been allowed to continue.

The Darwin Núñez Foul Controversy

The biggest point of contention came late in the game, when Brooks awarded a foul against Darwin Núñez that enraged both the Liverpool bench and fans in the stadium. Lynch described the moment, stating, “Arne Slot looked like he was ready to explode.” Brooks’ decision to penalise Núñez for what appeared to be a soft challenge caused uproar, with Lynch highlighting the Liverpool manager’s visible frustration on the touchline.

Photo: IMAGO

Lynch added that the incident reflected Brooks’ overall poor management of the game, stating, “His general management of the game was appalling.” This call, and others like it, contributed to an overarching feeling that Brooks had lost control of the match, leaving both teams confused by the inconsistency of the officiating.

Big Decisions Correct, But Poor Overall Management

Interestingly, Lynch did acknowledge that Brooks got several major decisions right, including the awarding of the first penalty to Curtis Jones after a clear foul by Ben Chilwell. “Most of the big decisions, I think he actually got right,” Lynch conceded, adding that the penalty decision was “pretty nailed on.”

However, Lynch’s praise for the correct decisions was tempered by his criticism of Brooks’ failure to maintain consistency and manage the match in a balanced way. He felt that while the referee handled some key moments well, his overall control of the match left much to be desired.

Did Brooks Feel the Anfield Crowd?

Lynch also speculated that Brooks might have been influenced by the intensity of officiating at Anfield. “Sometimes you wonder, did he go into these games thinking, ‘I’m not going to be cowed by the Anfield crowd’?” Lynch questioned. He suggested that in an effort to remain impartial and unaffected by the famously vocal Liverpool supporters, Brooks may have overcompensated, leading to questionable calls that disrupted the flow of the match.

This overcorrection resulted in Brooks making a number of strange decisions, particularly against Liverpool, which only fuelled frustrations among the players and coaching staff.

David Lynch’s analysis on Media Matters made it clear that John Brooks’ refereeing performance during Liverpool’s 2-1 win over Chelsea left much to be desired. While Brooks got some of the big calls right, Lynch highlighted his inconsistent decision-making and poor game management as key issues that affected the overall flow of the match. For Liverpool, the officiating may not have altered the result, but it certainly created moments of confusion and frustration, particularly around the controversial foul on Darwin Núñez.