Behind the whistle: Former referee Chris Foy analyzes decisions from the Championship, League One and League Two | Football news
In this edition of Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from games over the festive period in the Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two.
Behind the Whistle aims to provide supporters of EFL clubs with an insight into decision-making considerations and also clarification of certain calls to enable an understanding of how the Laws of the Game are interpreted.
As part of Sky Sports’ regular post-match show, Foy will be here to take you through some refereeing questions in the EFL…
Sky Bet Championship
Coventry City 4-0 Plymouth Argyle
Incident – Possible penalty foul (Coventry City)
Decision – No penalty (Coventry City)
Foy says: “For me, the referee is misinterpreting what happened here, because the penalty should have been awarded to Coventry City.
“Although the referee is in a good position, watching the action from an unobstructed angle, despite the packed box and the rapidly developing phase of the game, he fails to recognize a foul by Plymouth Argyle No39, which I consider reckless.
“The Plymouth man goes into attack in rhythm and fails to win the ball and is therefore very fortunate not to have a penalty awarded or cautioned here.”
Incident – Possible red card, violent behavior (Burnley)
Decision – Red card, violent behavior (Burnley)
Foy says: “This is an excellent example of a red card for violent behavior and the kind of incident we don’t want to see in football.
“As a Burnley player goes to take the corner, he deliberately steps on the Stoke City number 22.
“Clearly this was a deliberate unfootballing action that could have been avoided. Due to the degree of force, a straight red is absolutely the correct decision and an excellent point by the referee.”
Incident – Possible red card, high leg (Derby County)
Decision – No red card (Derby County)
Foy says: “I think the referee understood this decision because it could easily have been described as a red card.
“Although the Derby County player’s leg is clearly raised, he has his eye on the ball at all times and does not nail the opponent.
“It’s undoubtedly a bookable offence, but the fact that he’s catching his opponent with the top of his foot, not his cleats, and it’s a genuine attempt to win the ball, is enough to suggest he’s not quite worthy of a straight red. The referee can see that and rightly admonishes him for a reckless challenge.”
Incident – Possible penalty (Watford)
Decision – No penalty awarded (Watford)
Foy says: “This is an excellent decision by the referee, because he has both elements of the decision. First, he correctly recognizes that the attack by the Sheffield United player in the penalty area is fair and that he wins the ball.
“Secondly, he then takes a goal kick, which might make people think there is no contact with the ball, so why not a penalty. What is really happening is that a Sheffield United player is playing the ball against his opponent.
“No penalty and no goal kick is a completely correct outcome and overall a great decision, which highlights the importance of both positioning and awareness.”
Sky Bet League One
Birmingham City 2-0 Burton Albion
Incident – Possible penalty foul (Birmingham City)
Decision – Penalty awarded (Birmingham City)
Foy says: “In my opinion, Burton Albion were extremely unfortunate to award a penalty here, because I don’t think the criteria for awarding a spot-kick was met.
“Birmingham’s number 14 clearly moves across the Burton Albion defender, ‘making his back’ to a defender who normally jumps without jumping himself, thereby making contact where the striker falls to the ground under the weight of the defender. .
“For me the contact was instigated by a Birmingham player and he is actually the one who should be penalized here. The correct decision would have been to award a defensive free-kick to Burton Albion.”
Bristol Rovers 2-3 Leyton Orient
Incident – Goal scored, possible handball (Leyton Orient)
Decision – Goal disallowed (Leyton Orient)
Foy says: “This is another example of excellent awareness and accurate judgment from the referee, as he spotted the number 24 of Bristol Rovers handing the ball into the goal at the back post.
“With the home team desperate to equalize in the last few minutes of the game, a crowded penalty area can make it difficult for the referee but, thanks to his position, he can spot the deliberate use of the hand and award a free kick.
“The only thing that should have been different is that the offender should also have been given a caution for deliberate handball.”
Incident – Goal scored, possible foul (Exeter City)
Decision – Goal awarded (Exeter City)
Foy says: “Crawley Town were unlucky not to be awarded a defensive free-kick here, for me.
“As the corner is being taken, Exeter City’s number 2 leans towards the Crawley Town keeper. The contact clearly hits the keeper and prevents him from getting to the ball.
“The Exeter 2’s lean meets the threshold for a foul, and therefore should have been recognized and penalized by the referee, disallowing the goal.”
Sky Bet League Two
Colchester United 2-0 Gillingham
Incident – Goal scored, possible offside (Colchester United)
Decision – Goal disallowed, offside (Colchester United)
Foy says: “This is an excellent decision by the assistant referee, who correctly identified the shooter at the back post as being in the backfield.
“Even though it’s very tight, you can see from the markings on the pitch that the Colchester United player at the back post is leaning forward, so his head is offside.
“The assistant has the advantage of being on the side closest to him, but it’s still an excellent decision, demonstrating first-class awareness and judgment, especially given how far the ball travels across the penalty area.”
Incident – Goal scored, possible offside (Barrow)
Decision – Goal disallowed, offside (Barrow)
Foy says: “From an educational point of view, this is a good offside decision and a decision that the match referees have in mind here.
“At the moment the original kick comes in, Barrow’s number 11, who scores the goal, is standing in the backfield.
“The assistant referee correctly penalizes an attacker for offside when the ball is deflected away from a defender, whereupon the attacker continues to score. The attacker’s actions were not deliberate play of the ball. However, even if they were, the offside would still be valid, as the defender saved the shot on goal when he came into contact with the ball.
“As such, the striker would have gained an advantage by being in that position and would have been penalized for offside, in the same way as he would have been if the ball had come to him after a save by the goalkeeper, having been in the backfield at the time of the original the shot is taken.”
