Behind the Whistle: Chris Foy explains latest EFL decisions including Stoke and Burnley calls | Football News


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.

Sky Bet Championship

Blackpool 1-0 Stoke City

Incident: Potential penalty (Stoke City)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Stoke City)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Stoke were denied a penalty in their fixture at Blackpool

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.

Luton Town 0-1 Burnley

Incident: Potential penalty – handball (Burnley)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Burnley)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Burnley were awarded a penalty for handball at Luton

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.

Rotherham United 0-2 Coventry City

Incident: Potential goal scored (Rotherham United)

Decision: Goal disallowed (Rotherham United)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rotherham saw a goal ruled out for a foul on the Coventry goalkeeper

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.

Sunderland 1-1 Bristol City

Incident: Potential penalty (Bristol City)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Bristol City)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Bristol City were awarded a penalty at Sunderland

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.

Sky Bet League One

Derby County 2-0 Charlton Athletic

Incident: Potential penalty (Derby County)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Derby County)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Derby County were awarded a penalty vs Charlton Athletic

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.

Sheffield Wednesday 5-2 MK Dons

Incident: Potential goal scored (Sheffield Wednesday)

Decision: Goal awarded (Sheffield Wednesday)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sheffield Wednesday’s goal against MK Dons was awarded

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.

Sky Bet League Two

Tranmere Rovers 0-2 Mansfield Town

Incident: Potential goal scored (Tranmere Rovers)

Decision: Goal disallowed – Offside (Tranmere Rovers)

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tranmere had a goal ruled out for offside against Mansfield

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.



Source link