Former Premier League referee Chris Foy examines decisions from the latest Sky Bet League One and League Two action; Wigan 2-3 Stevenage, Bristol Rovers 3-1 Oxford United, Notts County 1-1 Barrow and Forest Green Rovers 0-1 Accrington Stanley all analysed
Wednesday 31 January 2024 12:50, 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 runs you through some refereeing matters in the EFL…
Incident: Potential penalty (Wigan)
Decision: Penalty awarded - Handball (Wigan)
Foy says: When the ball is played into the box here, the Stevenage No 6 is close to an opponent who he's jostling for position with. When the ball arrives, the Stevenage player clearly extends his right arm, 'making himself bigger', meaning his arm is in an unnatural position.
Clear contact is made between ball and arm, leaving the referee with no choice but to award the penalty. I don't think the jostling with the opponent sufficiently explains why the defender's arm comes out in the way it does. For me, the referee is absolutely right to award a penalty kick.
His positioning couldn't be better either, so when the ball does strike the hand, he has a clear view of the action and correctly points to the spot.
Bristol Rovers 3-1 Oxford United
Incident: Goal scored - Potential handball (Oxford United)
Decision: Goal awarded (Oxford United)
Foy says: These types of decisions can be really tough calls for referees to make in real-time, as it relies on having a view that allows the referee to be certain of which player or players the ball touches and importantly what part of the body makes contact with the ball.
The shot towards goal by the Oxford No 8 hits the Oxford No 9, diverting the ball into the goal. As you can see from the replays, the part of the body the ball makes contact with is the arm of Oxford's No 9, and the Laws of the Game say the goal must be disallowed because the ball made contact with the arm of the attacker immediately before the goal was scored.
I sympathise with the referee here because the ball was moving at some pace and there are two Bristol Rovers players around the Oxford No 9, making it more challenging to see who the ball actually hits.
In his view, it may well have looked like the ball hit the midriff of No 9 and not his hand, but with the benefit of replays, this goal should have been ruled out for handball.
Incident: Goal scored - Possible offside (Notts County)
Decision: Goal awarded (Notts County)
Foy says: This was good officiating because there were a couple of decisions for the referee and his assistant to make here, and I believe they have made the right call.
When the ball is shot towards goal by the Notts County No 11, there are some question marks about whether the goalkeeper's line of vision is impaired by the Notts County No 9. From the replays, you can see that Notts County's No 9 is onside, with both the 'keeper and Barrow's No 6 between the Notts County No 9 and the goal line.
This is a really good decision, and the goal was correctly awarded.
Forest Green Rovers 0-1 Accrington Stanley
Incident: Potential penalty (Accrington Stanley)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Accrington Stanley)
Foy says: For me, there is clear and impactful holding from the Forest Green No 5 with all roads then leading to a penalty being given.
I believe this is absolutely the right call here, as Forest Green's No 5 only focuses on his opponent and does not challenge for the ball. The action of holding is clearly impactful and has a material impact.
The referee gets himself into a good position and correctly awards the penalty.
