In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest action in the Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two.
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…
Sky Bet Championship
Norwich City 1-0 West Bromwich Albion
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
West Brom’s Mason Holgate saw a goal disallowed for offside from a corner against Norwich
Incident – Goal scored, possible offside (West Bromwich Albion)
Decision – Goal disallowed, offside (West Bromwich Albion)
Foy says: “This situation is well read by the assistant referee, as he correctly identifies that West Bromwich Albion No3 is in an offside position as the ball is headed by his team-mate and then becomes involved in active play.
“This type of incident can be difficult for the assistant referee to judge, as the attacking player is moving back towards the edge of the penalty area, whilst the defending players are moving in the opposite direction towards the goal, creating a cross-over.
“This highlights the importance of focus and awareness, with the cross-over happening. As you can see from the replay alongside the 18 yard-box, No3 doesn’t quite get back onside in time, and therefore the flag is correctly raised.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should Sunderland’s Wilson Isidor have seen red against Millwall during their Championship clash?
Incident – Possible red card, serious foul play (Sunderland)
Decision – Caution offence (Sunderland)
Foy says: “I think the action of Sunderland’s No18 here is reckless and the referee correctly judges the situation by only showing him a yellow card.
“Following a heavy touch, the Sunderland No18 commits to a tackle and follow through contact is made with the Millwall No52 who also attempts to play the ball.
“Whilst Sunderland No18 does get a touch on the ball, the challenge disregards the consequence to his opponent who he should see approaching, and the referee does well to correctly identify that the challenge lacks the excessive force and high degree of danger that would be required for a red card for serious foul play. A yellow card is therefore the correct outcome.”
Sky Bet League One
Blackpool 2-1 Bolton Wanderers
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The referee initially gave Aaron Morley a yellow card before speaking to his team and decided to change his decision to a red card, was this the correct decision
Incident – Possible red card, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (Bolton Wanderers)
Decision – Red card, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (Bolton Wanderers)
Foy says: “This clip is an interesting one as it highlights the importance of communication between officials to ensure that they are aware of all the key facts in order to provide the best chance of arriving at the correct outcome.
“As Blackpool No14 is moving directly towards the Bolton goal, he is cynically pulled back by Bolton No16. The referee gives the free kick and shows a yellow card for stopping a promising attack.
“However, what was not initially recognised by the referee was that the Bolton goalkeeper was not in his penalty area, but in the midfield returning back towards his goal from a corner kick at the other end of the field. After consulting with his team, the referee rescinds the yellow card and shows a direct red card.
“As the goalkeeper was absent from his goal, the holding offence on the Blackpool No14 was a denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The correct outcome is reached following the additional information being provided to the referee.”
Birmingham City 4-1 Shrewsbury Town
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Shrewsbury defender appeared to hold the Birmingham player for a long period of time before pulling him down in the box, but the referee did not award a penalty
Incident – Possible penalty, sustained holding (Birmingham City)
Decision – No penalty (Birmingham City)
Foy says: “For me, Shrewsbury Town’s No2 should have been penalised and conceded a penalty here, as he has hold of Birmingham City’s captain for a sustained period of time.
“The replay confirms that the Shrewsbury defender has no eyes on the ball and pulls his opponent to the ground with a sustained and impactful non-footballing action, preventing the Birmingham player from reaching the ball as it drops into his location. A penalty kick should therefore have been awarded to Birmingham.”
Sky Bet League Two
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Swindon defender appeared to arrive at pace and committed to the sliding tackle however the referee chose to award a goal kick instead
Incident – Possible penalty, foul (Morecambe)
Decision – No penalty (Morecambe)
Foy says: “The referee has three different options here and for me he chooses correctly by giving Swindon Town a goal-kick.
“As Morecambe’s No4 drives into the box, Swindon No20 inherits the risk by committing to a sliding challenge, however, whilst there is contact between the two players, the referee recognises the touch of the ball to the left by the Morecambe No4, without changing his path of movement, and considers it to have created contact. Although the Swindon defender arrives at pace, he pulls his leg away at the last moment and any contact made is by Morecambe No4 on Swindon Town No20.
“Whilst a subjective call, I think the referee selects the best option of awarding a goal-kick.”
