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, League One and League Two.
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…
Burnley 0-0 Preston North End
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Preston North End had a goal ruled out for offside – but was it the right decision?
Incident: Goal scored, possible offside (Preston North End)
Decision: Goal disallowed, offside (Preston North End)
Foy says: “Preston North End are unfortunate here as they had a goal incorrectly ruled out for offside.
“From a well-worked set-piece routine, Preston’s No 9 makes a run across his defender and slots the ball into the bottom corner, only to see the flag go up.
“Thanks to the benefit of replays, we can see that No 9 was in fact onside, being played on by the Burnley defender on the far side. In real time though, there were lots of bodies in the centre, making this a difficult call for the assistant referee. The correct decision in this case would have been to keep the flag down.”
Derby County 2-0 Queens Park Rangers
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Derby County’s goal is not ruled as offside despite Kayden Jackson clearly standing in an offside position as he does not impact the goalkeeper’s line of vision
Incident: Goal scored, possible offside/line of vision (Derby County)
Decision: Goal awarded, goalkeeper line of vision not impacted (Derby County)
Foy says: “This is a great clip to use from an educational perspective.
“As the header comes in towards goal, we can see that Derby County’s No 19 is clearly standing in an offside position. However, the angle from behind the goal shows us that he is not impacting the goalkeeper’s line of vision.
“Further to this, the Derby man does not make a play towards the ball. The goalkeeper therefore has not had his chances of making a save impacted, and the goal is correctly awarded.”
Burton Albion 1-3 Bristol Rovers
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should Burton Albion’s Terence Vancooten have seen a straight red?
Incident: Possible red-card, DOGSO (Burton Albion)
Decision: Red card awarded, DOGSO (Burton Albion)
Foy says: “This is an excellent call from the referee as he correctly identifies that Burton Albion’s No 15 should be shown a straight red card for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).
“Firstly, he identifies that No 15 does not win the ball and fouls his opponent so correctly awards a free-kick.
“The next question is whether or not this foul denies the attacker an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and, in his view, it does. I think this is an excellent decision as in full speed it may look as though the defender is covering, but the reality is that the attacker is moving towards goal, with an obvious opportunity to score had he not been fouled.
“The referee gets both calls spot on, awarding a free-kick to Bristol Rovers and sending the Burton man off.”
Wrexham 4-1 Northampton Town
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should Wrexham have been awarded a penalty against Northampton Town?
Incident: Possible penalty, holding (Wrexham)
Decision: No penalty given (Wrexham)
Foy says: “For me, although the referee decides to allow play to continue in this situation, Northampton Town were very fortunate to escape from this corner kick without conceding a penalty.
“In what is a very crowded penalty area, Wrexham’s No 5 is clearly being held by two Northampton players in the centre of the box, which clearly prevents him from making any further progress and possibly getting his head on the ball.
“Northampton’s No 39, in particular, runs the risk of giving away a penalty here as his focus is solely on his opponent and the holding is sustained and impactful. The correct decision here would be to award a penalty kick to Wrexham.”
Chesterfield 2-2 Walsall
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should Walsall have been awarded a penalty for a possible foul inside the penalty area?
Incident: Possible penalty, foul (Walsall)
Decision: No penalty, no foul (Walsall)
Foy says: “In what was a game of extremely fine margins, the referee was correct not to award Walsall a penalty for a possible foul inside the penalty area.
Although Chesterfield’s No 11 does run the risk in aiming to volley the ball away with a Walsall player so close to him, the replays show that the ball actually strikes his knee and he is caught afterwards by the Walsall No 22, which could have been penalised as a foul.
In full speed, it looks as though it could be a penalty kick for a foul, but the referee’s awareness and positioning allows him to see that this is not the case and allows play to continue.
Salford City 1-0 AFC Wimbledon
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why wasn’t AFC Wimbledon awarded a penalty against Salford City?
Incident: Possible penalty, foul (AFC Wimbledon)
Decision: No penalty, foul outside the area (AFC Wimbledon)
Foy says: “This is a great example of a referee communicating well with the players on the pitch as he explains to both sides why he has not awarded AFC Wimbledon a penalty.
“Although it is an extremely tight call as to whether the foul is outside or inside the box, the contact that sees Wimbledon No 9 fouled is just outside the penalty area and his momentum after the foul takes his fall inside of the penalty area.
“The position of a foul is determined by the moment of contact, with the only exception being a foul for holding where any contact that continues into the box would result in a penalty.
“The referee makes a very good judgement here and is correct to award a free-kick.”