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

Former Premier League referee Chris Foy is also investigating 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

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.

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 a regular feature on Sky Sports after the conclusion of a matchday, Foy will be here to take you through some refereeing matters in the EFL, starting with the following.

Sky Bet Championship

Blackpool 1-0 Stoke City

Incident: Possible penalty (Stoke City)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Stoke City)

Foi says: Contact is allowed in game and through working with others we’ve made strides over the past few seasons to reflect our preference of not penalizing minimal contact – i.e. higher threshold – and ensuring the game is allowed to flow where possible, both of which help Pace and competitiveness in EFL games.

That being said, I think the contact in this particular decision crosses that threshold. The defender gets the attacker’s wrong side and places both hands on the attacker’s back and makes a clear thrusting action. The result is an impairment of the attacker’s ability to play the ball.

In retrospect, a penalty should have been awarded.

Luton Town 0-1 Burnley

Incident: Possible penalty – hand ball (Burnley)

Decision: Awarded penalty (Burnley)

Foi says: Had the defender’s hand been in a natural position and closer to his body, given the distance between attacker and defender, any penalty claim would have been dismissed and play could have continued.

However, I think that in this case, the defender’s arm moves away from his body, thereby making the body bigger and thereby preventing the ball from going past him. The arm is not in a reasonable position given his action and I think the right decision was made in awarding the penalty.

Rotherham United 0-2 Coventry City

Incident: Possible goal scored (Rotherham United)

Decision: Goal disallowed (Rotherham United)

Foi says: In this particular incident, the referee must determine whether the attacker’s action is affecting the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball – this is a subjective judgement.

There is light contact and the attacker’s arm hits the goalkeeper. Once a defending player positions himself in front of the goaltender in this way, the moment the defender grabs or physically hits the goaltender, there is a greater risk that a foul will be committed.

I wouldn’t say the decision is clearly wrong, but at the same time I don’t think there would be too many complaints from the defending team if a goal were awarded. Although a subjective assessment, this is an on-field referee’s assessment and I feel that overall the right decision was made.

Sunderland 1-1 Bristol City

Incident: Potential penalty (Bristol City)

Decision: Awarded penalty (Bristol City)

Foi says: Once the attacker reaches the defender’s wrong side, the defender bears the responsibility if he considers making a challenge. If the defender consistently touches the opponent and does not play the ball, there is a high probability that this will result in a foul – in this case, a penalty.

While I think the defender stumbles, the result is clear contact that has consequence and stumbles the attacking player. It’s a negligent foul and I think a penalty was rightly awarded.

Skybet League One

Derby County 2-0 Charlton Athletic

Incident: Potential penalty (Derby County)

Decision: Awarded penalty (Derby County)

Foi says: I think this is very similar to the penalty awarded in the Luton v Burnley game as detailed above.

While relatively close, the defender leans into the ball with his arm away from his body, thereby enlarging his body. For me it was the right decision to miss the penalty.

Sheffield Wednesday 5-2 MK Dons

Incident: Possible goal scored (Sheffield Wednesday)

Decision: Goal scored (Sheffield Wednesday)

Foi says: It is debatable whether the ball hits the attacker’s arm in advance of the goal being scored, but there are two aspects to this decision.

With the advantage of reps, it looks like the ball touches the attacker’s shoulder. But even if it had hit his arm, the decision to award the goal anyway would have been correct as it was an accident and this attacker didn’t score the goal straight away.

Skybet League Two

Tranmere Rovers 0-2 Mansfield Town

Incident: Possible goal scored (Tranmere Rovers)

Decision: Goal not awarded – offside (Tranmere Rovers)

Foi says: This is a close decision, always difficult for an assistant referee as the ball travels a considerable distance.

In this case, I think the fact that the attacker leans to start his run forward might just put him in front of the penultimate defender and in an offside position. It’s a fine-margin decision, but one I would agree with.