Former Premier League referee Chris Foy also examines decisions made in League One between Derby County and Charlton Athletic, Sheffield Wednesday and MK Dons and in League Two between Tranmere Rovers and Mansfield Town
Tuesday 28 February 2023 15:48, UK
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.
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 a regular feature on Sky Sports following the conclusion of a matchday, Foy will be here to run you through some refereeing matters in the EFL, starting with the below.
Incident: Potential penalty (Stoke City)
Decision: No penalty awarded (Stoke City)
Foy says: Contact is permitted in the game and by working together with others we've made strides in recent seasons to reflect a preference not to penalise minimal contact - i.e higher threshold - and to ensure the game is allowed to flow where possible, both of which aid the tempo and competitiveness in EFL fixtures.
That being said, in this particular decision I think the contact goes past that threshold. The defender gets the wrong side of the attacker and places both hands on the back of the attacker and makes a clear action to push. The consequence is an impact on the attacker's ability to play the ball.
With the benefit of looking back at this, a penalty kick should have been awarded.
Incident: Potential penalty - handball (Burnley)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Burnley)
Foy says: Given the distance between the attacker and the defender, had the hand of the defender been in a natural position and closer to his body, appeals for a penalty would have been waved away and play allowed to continue.
However, I think on this occasion, the arm of the defender is moving away from his body and therefore making the body bigger and, in doing so, prevents the ball from going past him. The arm is not in a justifiable position given his action and I think the correct decision was made in awarding the penalty.
Incident: Potential goal scored (Rotherham United)
Decision: Goal disallowed (Rotherham United)
Foy says: In this particular incident, the referee has to determine if the action of the attacker impacts the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball - this is a subjective judgement.
There is slight contact, and the arm of the attacker does come across the goalkeeper. Once a defending player positions themselves in front of the goalkeeper like this, the moment the defender holds or impacts the goalkeeper physically, there is a greater risk of a foul being given.
I wouldn't say the decision is clearly wrong, but at the same time, if a goal was given, I don't think there would be too many complaints from the defending team. Whilst a subjective judgement, this is an on-field judgement by the referee, and I feel that on balance the correct decision has been made.
Incident: Potential penalty (Bristol City)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Bristol City)
Foy says: Once the attacker gets the wrong side of the defender, there is a responsibility on the defender when considering making any challenge. Where the defender makes contact with the opponent with consequence and doesn't play the ball, there is a strong possibility that it will result in a foul - a penalty in this instance.
Whilst I do think the defender stumbles, the result is clear contact that has a consequence, tripping the attacking player. This is a careless foul, and a penalty was correctly awarded in my view.
Incident: Potential penalty (Derby County)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Derby County)
Foy says: I think this is very similar to the penalty awarded in the Luton v Burnley fixture, as detailed above.
Whilst at relatively close proximity, the defender leans into the ball with his arm away from his body and therefore making their body bigger. For me, the correct decision was taken to award the penalty.
Incident: Potential goal scored (Sheffield Wednesday)
Decision: Goal awarded (Sheffield Wednesday)
Foy says: There is a question over whether the ball hits the arm of the attacker in the build-up to the goal being scored, but there are two aspects to this decision.
With the benefit of replays, it does look like that ball makes contact with the shoulder of the attacker. However, even if it had hit his arm, given it was accidental and that attacker does not score the goal immediately, the decision would have been correct to award the goal regardless.
Incident: Potential goal scored (Tranmere Rovers)
Decision: Goal disallowed - Offside (Tranmere Rovers)
Foy says: This is a tight decision and one that is always difficult for an assistant referee given the ball travels a significant distance.
On this occasion, I think the fact that the attacker is leaning to start his run forward may just put him in front of the second-last defender and in an offside position. It's a decision with fine margins, but one I would agree with.
