Behind the Whistle: Chris Foy explains latest EFL decisions including Hull and Sunderland penalty calls

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two action.

Although many decisions made on the pitch are of a subjective nature, Behind the Whistle aims to give supporters of EFL clubs an insight into the decision-making considerations and also clarification of certain calls to provide an understanding of how the laws of the game are interpreted.

As part of our regular feature on Sky Sports following the conclusion of a matchday, Foy runs you through some of the latest refereeing matters in the EFL....

Sky Bet Championship

Reading 1-1 Hull

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Potential penalty - (Hull)

Decision: No penalty awarded - (Hull)

Despite there not being a great deal of distance between the attacking and defending players, I do think the defending player's arms are clearly extended away from his body and in an unnatural position, therefore making his body bigger. The ball is clearly prevented from progressing.

I would say that a penalty would have been the better outcome on this occasion.

Sunderland 1-1 Luton

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Potential penalty (Sunderland)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Sunderland)

There is certainly a pull on the arm of the Sunderland attacker as he enters the box, however this is a fleeting action and not sustained, so does not meet the required threshold for penalising a holding offence.

A certain amount of contact is allowed in the game, I think the attacking player possibly slips at the end, rather than being clearly prevented from progressing as a consequence of the actions of the defending player, which makes the decision a more complex one for the referee. However, allowing play to continue would have been the best outcome in this situation.

Sky Bet League One

Bristol Rovers 0-2 Portsmouth

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Goal scored - potential offside (Portsmouth)

Decision: Goal awarded (Portsmouth)

When the ball is played through and while not conclusive from the footage, it does look like the Portsmouth attacker has started his attacking run a little too early and strayed into an offside position.

There is a Bristol Rovers defender just out of shot, but given the shadows on the pitch, it does suggest that this decision should have resulted in the goal being disallowed for an offside offence. A marginal call though.

Cheltenham 3-1 Exeter

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Potential penalty (Exeter)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Exeter)

As the ball is played through the referee has a clear view of the actions of the Cheltenham #22, who commits to a tackle but does not appear to make any contact on the ball.

One of the biggest clues is that as you can see on the footage the ball does not deviate. On balance I believe the referee has got this call correct, penalising this careless challenge.

Sky Bet League Two

Rochdale 4-4 Swindon

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Potential offside (Rochdale - first goal)

Decision: Goal awarded (Rochdale)

While it can sometimes be difficult to judge when the ball is last played by a team-mate to the attacking player and their position relative to the second last defender, I think this was a good call by the assistant referee.

On this occasion, I think the positioning of the official is spot on, and as such they are able to accurately identify that the Swindon Town #2 has just dropped a little deeper, therefore playing the forward onside.

Stockport 1-1 Mansfield

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Incident: Potential penalty (Mansfield)

Decision: No penalty awarded - (Mansfield)

In this clip there are two penalty appeals. The first is for the contact by Stockport County #9 on Mansfield Town #17 and the second is for a handball following the turn and shot.

The referee has done well here to remain composed and judge both incidents on their own merits. The contact by Stockport County No 9 is normal contact expected when challenging for a ball and while the ball may have struck an arm it was in the expected position and the player was very close to where the shot came from.

Overall, two correct decisions in my opinion.

Win £250,000 with Super 6!

Another Saturday, another chance to win £250,000 with Super 6. Play for free, entries by 3pm.