In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy takes a look at the key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two fixtures.
‘Behind the Whistle’ provides supporters of EFL clubs with insight into decision-making considerations and also clarifies certain calls so they understand how the laws of the game are interpreted. The purpose is to.
As part of Sky Sports’ regular post-match feature, Foy is here to discuss refereeing issues in the EFL…
Watford 1-0 Oxford United
Incident: Possible penalty (Oxford United)
decision: No penalty awarded (Oxford United)
“I think this is a good example of clear and concise officiating and not awarding a penalty in this case was the right decision,” Foy said.
“At first the defender holds and then the attacker grabs the defender’s shorts, resulting in a mutual hold, but the main culprit is definitely the defender. Recognizing that the effect of this hold is outside the box. It’s also important to do that.” Instead of a sustained action to invade the penalty area, a shocking holding occurred that resulted in him falling into the penalty area.
“The referee was able to identify the shocking holding from that position and made the correct decision to award a free kick rather than a penalty. The referee is good at clearly communicating this decision to the players.”
Stoke City 1-1 Millwall
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
Millwall’s defenders held back Stoke’s attackers, denying them obvious scoring chances and making no attempt to play the ball. Should he have been given a penalty and a red card?
Incident: Potential penalties and red cards (Stoke City)
decision: No penalty awarded (Stoke City)
Foy said: “When the corner kick entered the penalty area, Millwall’s No. 5 made a clear keeping action and this clearly affected the ability of Stoke’s attackers to make their next move.” he said.
“Holding also denied a clear scoring opportunity and given there was no attempt to play the ball, the referee should have awarded a penalty and shown a red card to the DOGSO Millwall defender. (denying a clear scoring opportunity).
“The referee will be disappointed that he missed this, probably because he was a bit too central and was looking behind the defenders instead of looking at the situation from the side.”
Burton Albion 2-0 Shrewsbury Town
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
Burton Albion’s No. 9 was ruled offside and the incoming No. 7 was able to aim for goal. The assistant referee did not lower the flag and the goal was allowed.
Incident: Goal scored, possible offside (Burton Albion)
decision: Goal scored (Burton Albion)
Foy said: “This is a really good decision on the part of the assistant referee considering there are two attackers on the edge of the cross and one of them appears to be in an offside position at the time the ball is played.” Ta.
“Burton Albion’s number 9 had just gone offside but was not involved in any active play and it was the next player at the back post (number 7) who ultimately touched the ball and scored the goal. )is.
“The assistant referee was absolutely right to take down the flag and put the goal up.”
Fleetwood 1-0 Bradford City
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
Bradford’s striker and Fleetwood defender link up, but was this a clear scoring chance? The referee selected the next play…
Incident: Potential to deny scoring opportunities – DOGSO (Fleetwood)
decision: No foul allowed (Fleetwood)
Foy said: “During a rapidly developing phase of the game, Fleetwood’s No. 5 and Bradford’s No. 9 made contact as they changed direction in pursuit of the ball, resulting in both players falling to the ground. The position of the referee allows the referee to accurately recognize the following: Contact between players does not meet the high standards for penalizing contact and there is no foul, meaning the situation does not need to be considered as a potential denial of a clear scoring opportunity.
“If the referee had awarded a penalty to the defender, there would have been an element of doubt as to whether the attacker was likely to control the ball and advance towards goal. So it was a promising attack and the DOGSO Probably not.”
