Behind the Whistle: Latest EFL decisions analysed

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the weekend EFL 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…   

Sunderland 0-1 Hull City

Incident: Goal scored, possibly offside (Hull City)

Decision: Goal disallowed, offside (Hull City)

Foy says: “Although the still image here shows that Hull City’s goal scorer is clearly in an offside position, it is an excellent real-time decision from the assistant referee, given the many factors that need to be considered.

“As the Hull goalscorer runs backwards, several Sunderland defenders retreat towards the goal line and it does look as if he could be in an onside position, but this is not the case.

“The assistant referee’s flag goes up and he clearly signals with his hand that the player has come back from an offside position to become involved in active play, so he gets this spot on.”

Lincoln City 0-1 Burton Albion

Incident: Possible penalty, foul (Burton Albion)

Decision: No penalty, simulation (Burton Albion)

Foy says: “Although factors such as speed of movement are important context here, the referee absolutely makes the correct decision in showing Burton Albion’s No 7 a caution for simulation.

“Once the attacker gets into the penalty area, he feels light contact from Lincoln City No 23 and falls to the ground. The referee’s positioning allows him to correctly identify that the contact was nowhere sufficient enough to cause him to go to ground, and therefore a defensive free-kick was awarded.”

Rotherham United 0-1 Barnsley

Incident: Possible penalty, handball (Barnsley)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Barnsley)

Foy says: “This incident meets all the criteria for a handball offence but was unfortunately missed by the match officials.

“The position and movement of the arm from the Rotherham United defender here are unjustifiable and comfortably meet the threshold for a spot-kick being awarded.

“The Rotherham man raises his arm high, away from his body and almost bats the ball away. This action clearly prevents the Barnsley attacker from having the potential to get the ball and therefore the referee should have awarded a penalty to Barnsley.“

Carlisle United 0-0 Gillingham

Incident: Possible penalty, foul (Gillingham)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Gillingham)

Foy says: “For me, this is an incorrect decision from the referee. As Gillingham’s No 20 runs through on goal and takes a touch past the ‘keeper, he is fouled and therefore unable to stay on his feet.

“Although the contact comes from a genuine challenge for the ball, there is careless contact that upends the forward and prevents him from potentially getting onto the ball.

“The correct call would have been to award a penalty kick to Gillingham.”

Grimsby Town 2-1 Fleetwood Town

Incident: Possible red card, DOGSO (Fleetwood Town)

Decision: No red card, advantage played (Fleetwood Town)

Foy says: “This is a difficult one for the referee here as he has to make an instinctive decision in the heat of the moment, in a very quickly developing phase of play.

“As the Grimsby Town forward runs through on goal, he is fouled by the Fleetwood Town defender, the last line of defence. The referee acknowledges this and plays the advantage, as another Grimsby player is through on goal with only the ‘keeper to beat. However, his shot is saved.

“At this point, the advantage has occurred, so it is too late to go back and give the defender a red card, as an obvious goalscoring opportunity has not been denied. Of course, it is frustrating for Grimsby to neither score nor see an opponent dismissed, but it is the correct judgement from the officials.”