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

Former referee Chris Foy also examines decisions made in Reading’s tie against Hull and Sunderland’s tie against Luton in the Championship, a goal for Portsmouth and a penalty for Exeter in League One and others in League Two

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes over a selection of key game decisions from the last Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two.

Although many decisions made on the pitch are subjective in nature, Behind the Whistle aims to provide EFL club supporters with insight into the reasoning behind decision making and also to clarify certain calls to provide an understanding of how the Laws of the Game are interpreted.

As part of our regular feature Sky Sports After a day’s play, Foy takes you through some of the latest refereeing affairs in the EFL….

Sky Bet Championship

Read 1-1 hull

incident: Possible penalty – (Hull)

Decision: No penalty awarded – (Hull)

Although the distance between the attacking and defending player is not very big, I think that the defending player’s arms are stretched significantly away from his body and in an unnatural position, making his body bigger. The ball is clearly prevented from progressing.

I would say that a penalty would have been the better result this time.

Sunderland 1-1 Luton

incident: Possible penalty (Sunderland)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Sunderland)

There is certainly a tug on the Sunderland attacker’s arm as he enters the box, but this is a fleeting action and not sustained, failing to meet the required threshold for punishing a holding offence.

A certain amount of contact is allowed in the game, I think the attacking player may end up slipping instead of being clearly prevented from progressing by the defending player’s actions, making the decision more complex for the referee. However, in this situation, the best result would have been to continue the game.

Skybet League One

Bristol Rovers 0-2 Portsmouth

incident: Goal scored – possible offside (Portsmouth)

Decision: Awarded goal (Portsmouth)

If the ball goes through and the footage is inconclusive, it looks like the Portsmouth attacker started his attacking run a little too early and strayed into an offside position.

There is a Bristol Rovers defender who is out of action at the moment but given the shadows on the pitch it suggests this decision should result in the goal being disallowed for an offside offense. A marginal call.

Cheltenham 3-1 Exeter

incident: Possible penalty (Exeter)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Exeter)

As the ball goes through the referee has a clear view of the actions of the Cheltenham #22, who engages in a tackle but does not appear to be making contact with the ball.

One of the biggest clues is that, as you can see from the footage, the ball doesn’t deviate. All in all, I believe the referee made the right decision and punished this careless challenge.

Skybet League Two

Rochdale 4-4 Swindon

incident: Possible offside (Rochdale – first goal)

Decision: Awarded goal (Rochdale)

Although it can sometimes be difficult to judge when the ball was last played from a team-mate to the attacking player and what position it is in relation to the penultimate defender, I think it was a good decision by the assistant referee.

On this occasion I think the official’s positioning is spot on and as such they can clearly see that the Swindon Town No. 2 has just dropped a little lower and is therefore playing the forward on the side.

Stockport 1-1 Mansfield

incident: Possible penalty (Mansfield)

Decision: No penalty awarded – (Mansfield)

There are two penalty appeals in this clip. The first is for Stockport County #9’s contact with Mansfield Town #17 and the second is for a handball after the turn and shot.

The referee did well here to remain calm and judge both incidents for himself. Stockport County No 9’s contact is normal contact that is expected when battling for a ball and although the ball may have hit an arm it was in the expected position and the player was very close to where from who got the shot.

Overall two right decisions in my opinion.