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.
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…
Stoke City 0-2 Burnley
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Stoke City and Burnley
Incident: Possible penalty (Stoke) and red card (Burnley)
Decision: No penalty (Stoke) or red card (Burnley) awarded
Foy says: “There are two different decisions for the referee to consider in this incident – a potential penalty for a foul by the goalkeeper and a potential red card offence by the Burnley attacking player for the challenge on the goalkeeper.
“As Burnley’s No 11 plays the ball with his raised right foot in an attempt to try and knock it over the ‘keeper, his movement brings him into contact with the Stoke goalkeeper who is moving towards the ball, clearly looking to save it with his hands. Therefore, the collision between the two is a consequence of both players making normal footballing actions.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chris Foy says: “The referee does well to identify all of these factors and makes the correct call of no penalty and no red card for the attacker”
“The referee does well to identify all of these factors and makes the correct call of no penalty and no red card for the attacker.”
Watford 0-0 QPR
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Watford and Queens Park Rangers
Incident: Possible penalty (QPR)
Decision: No penalty awarded (QPR)
Foy says: “I think the defending player should have been penalised in this particular incident, as he makes a clear movement with his arm.
“In real-time at pitch level, this is a difficult situation for the referee to identify, however, I think the key aspect to consider here is that there is a clear movement towards the ball by the Watford No 5, rather than it simply striking the arm.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chris Foy says: “I think the defending player should have been penalised in this particular incident, as he makes a clear movement with his arm”
“He has used his arm to make his body bigger and he makes a clear movement of the arm to make contact with the ball, therefore a penalty should have been awarded to the away side for a deliberate handball.”
Coventry City 2-2 Cardiff City
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Coventry City and Cardiff City
Incident: Possible penalty (Coventry City)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Cardiff City)
Foy says: “When a cross comes into the box and the defender’s arms are outstretched, making their body bigger, there is always a decision to make for the official as to whether or not to penalise when the arm and ball come into contact.
“In this instance, I think the official makes the correct call to award a penalty kick. The defending player’s arm is outstretched, making his body bigger. His actions are not justifiable and result in the cross into the box being deflected away.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chris Foy says: “When a cross comes into the box and the defender’s arms are outstretched, there is always a decision to make for the official as to whether or not to penalise when the arm and ball come into contact”
“Whilst there is a delay in awarding the penalty, this comes from the referee putting the pieces together. The referee identified the arm position but needed input from the assistant as to whether it struck the arm. With the two components put together, this was a correct outcome in my view.
“This decision is also a good example of how important communication between the officials is, as after consultation with the assistant referee – who had the better view of the incident – the referee makes the correct call.”
