Former Premier League referee Chris Foy examines decisions from the latest Sky Bet League One and League Two action; Burton Albion 1-1 Wycombe Wanderers; Fleetwood Town 1-3 Derby County; Cheltenham Town 2-1 Portsmouth; Mansfield Town 0-1 Crewe Alexandra
Tuesday 9 January 2024 14:00, UK
In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League and EFL referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet League One and League Two action.
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…
Incident: Goal scored - potential offside (Burton Albion)
Decision: Goal awarded (Burton Albion)
Foy says: This decision is based on whether the Burton forward ahead of the ball is firstly in an offside position, and if so, does he either: clearly obstruct the line of vision of the goalkeeper, or make an obvious action that clearly impacts the goalkeeper?
I think we can confirm the forward is in an offside position; however, he is not clearly in the line of vision of the goalkeeper or making an obvious action that has impacted the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball. A really good call from the officiating team involving teamwork to award the goal.
Incident: Potential penalty - handball (Derby County)
Decision: No penalty awarded (Derby County)
Foy says: While the arm of Fleetwood's No 32 is clearly moving to the left as part of the challenge being made, it is only the contact from Derby's No 2 contesting for the ball and making contact with the arm of No 32 that results in it moving towards the ball, and making contact.
Had No 32 jumped with his arm extended forwards and made direct contact with the ball this would be a handball offence in my opinion, but my view for this one is that No 32 could reasonably be considered to have his arm in a justifiable position for making an aerial challenge with the opponent and, therefore, grounds for no handball offence.
Incident: Potential penalty (Portsmouth)
Decision: No penalty awarded - caution for simulation (Portsmouth)
Foy says: This is a really good example of a referee managing a challenging situation within a pressured environment - there was only one goal in the game and it was late in the contest.
The referee is firstly correct to allow the game to resume quickly from the throw-in and is also correct to not award a penalty - any contact is outside the box, but it also seems there is no attempt to make a challenge from the defending player and minimal, if any, contact made with the attacker, so a caution for simulation was also credible.
I think we can also highlight the caution for dissent given to the on-rushing Portsmouth player to confront the referee and dispute the decision as a good bit of refereeing, which is part of how the Participant Behaviour charter is intended to make a positive difference. It is not unacceptable to disagree with a call by a match official, however it is unacceptable to confront officials like this.
Incident: Goal scored - potential offside (Crewe Alexandra)
Decision: Goal awarded (Crewe Alexandra)
Foy says: This is in relation to Crewe's No 9 and whether he is in an offside position when the ball is played to him in the build-up to the goal being scored.
I think the second angle may provide an indication that the forward may have not returned to an onside position in time, although this is a really tight decision given the position of Mansfield Town No 6, and difficult to say with certainty without the use of technology. Where the judgement is so tight it is better to keep the flag down.
