Former Premier League referee Chris Foy examines decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two action; Southampton vs Birmingham, Sunderland vs Norwich, Port Vale vs Cheltenham, Barrow vs Salford, Gillingham vs Newport
Tuesday 31 October 2023 11:17, UK
In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two action.
The feature 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…
Incident: Potential penalty (Birmingham City)
Decision: No penalty awarded (Birmingham City)
Foy says: I think the Southampton goalkeeper is very fortunate not to have given away a penalty for a foul on the Birmingham City attacker.
The goalkeeper has come a long way and commits to an aerial challenge, and following a header by the attacking player, makes clear contact with the attacking player. This is a reckless challenge by the goalkeeper that should have resulted in a penalty kick and a yellow card.
Incident: Goal scored - potential offside (Norwich City)
Decision: Goal awarded (Norwich City)
Foy says: This is a really good decision from the assistant referee, with the correct judgement call made to award the goal.
The appeals are coming as a result of a potential interference with an opponent by Norwich City's No 17, but as you can see from the freeze frame he is in line with the second-last opponent when the pass is made and therefore onside, so any claims of impacting the ability of the defenders to play or challenge for the ball are made redundant.
Incident: Potential penalty (Port Vale)
Decision: Free-kick awarded (Port Vale
Foy says: This is really positive teamwork with the assistant referee and referee identifying the foul and location. There is a clear and sustained holding offence by the Cheltenham Town defender, however, the officials correctly recognise that there is no continued holding into the box.
The correct call is made to award a free-kick and a caution for the defending player for stopping a promising attack.
Incident: Potential penalty (Barrow)
Decision: No penalty awarded - caution for simulation (Barrow)
Foy says: A very good call in real-time and the correct decision to not award the penalty and also to caution the Barrow attacker for simulation.
I think the attacking player is either anticipating contact or trying to create contact with the defending player by the movement of his right leg. The defending player has completed their challenge prior to any contact being made from the actions of the attacking player, therefore no penalty was awarded.
Incident: Potential penalty (Newport County)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Newport County)
Foy says: I do not think the award of a penalty was the correct decision in this particular incident.
I would say it is more of a case of both the attacking and defending players continuing on their path in pursuit of the ball. There is contact between the two players, however, I think this is normal footballing contact, and the better outcome would have been to allow play to continue.
