I know what brilliant moves are, but why, when the move is really brillant, it never is?

Okay, so I had a really intense game. I blundered a lot of material, and at one moment I got forked between my queen and rook. I couldn't take that knight, so I just moved my queen one square up, which was considered an inaccuracy, because I could have made a queen exchange otherwise. The knight took the rook and it was considered a brilliant move.

As you can see, this is the only move that isn't drawing or losing for black. But later, opponent has made a blunder with his queen. The only winning move was to sacrifice-check with my rook, so I played, and then picked up his queen.

As you can see, the rook move wins me 5 points of material. Every other move makes me lose. Then, why isn't this considered brilliant? Afterwards I played only best moves, ending with a mate, so I feel great about that game and that sacrifice, but it is kind of bitter for me that the opponent had a brilliant move that was simple and easy-to-notice, just taking the rook winning only 3 points of material, in other case losing like, 1 point, while I played barely noticeable sacrifice, killing my rook, but winning a queen and getting right the only move that made me win 5 points of material, otherwise losing even more. Can anyone explain that?

Link to the analysis: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/10772852961

Don't be bitter. It is difficult to figure out why some seemingly obvious moves are deemed brilliant.