Behind the whistle: Chris Foy explains latest EFL decisions, including appeals from Rotherham and Middlesbrough | Soccer News

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy reviews a selection of key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two.

Although many decisions made on the pitch are subjective in nature, Behind the Whistle aims to give supporters of EFL clubs insight into the decision-making considerations and also clarification on certain appeals to provide an understanding of how the laws of the game are interpreted. .

As part of a regular report on sky sports After a matchday is over, Foy will be there to explain some of the EFL refereeing issues to you, starting with the following.

Sky Bet Championship

Blackpool 0-0 Rotherham United

Incident: Penalty appeal (Rotherham United)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Rotherham United)

Faith says: “There is no doubt that contact is made between the ball and the defender’s arm, however, whenever the ball and the arm come into contact, it does not mean a handball foul. Match officials ruled that the striker’s arms were tightly stuck to his sides and that he was trying to get his arms away from the ball rather than making himself bigger. I think it’s the right decision because the arms are in a justifiable position given his action.”

Cardiff City 1-3 Middlesbrough

Incident: Potential offside (Middlesbrough)

Decision: Goal awarded (Middlesbrough)

Faith says: “This is a very close offside decision, but ultimately correct once you slow down the sequence and pause as the ball is played.

“Of course, the assistant referee doesn’t benefit that day, so it’s a very good decision that results in a goal scored by the opposing team.”

Sky Bet Ligue 1

Ipswich Town 2-2 Sheffield Wednesday

Incident: Penalty appeal and potential red card (Ipswich Town)

Decision: Penalty awarded and no warning given (Ipswich Town)

Foy says: “This decision is divided into two parts – the award of a penalty and the potential red card for violent conduct.

“The correct decision is made regarding the penalty. The assistant referee spotted an altercation off the ball and alerted the referee. However, in this case there should also have been a red card for violent conduct, but unfortunately the team on the pitch were unsure of the identity of the Sheffield Wednesday player as play continued momentarily before the referee awarded the penalty.”

Peterborough United 0-5 Bolton Wanderers

Incident: Potential offside (Bolton Wanderers)

Decision: Goal awarded (Bolton Wanderers)

Foy says: “In this scenario, I think it’s important to clarify the offside law, given that on this occasion there are two defenders behind the goalkeeper.

“A player is in an offside position if:

• Any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponent’s half of the pitch (excluding the halfway line) and
• Any part of the head, body or feet is closer to the opponents’ goal line than the ball and the penultimate opponent

“In the majority of cases, one of the defenders is the goalkeeper, however, in this case the offside line was ruled using two defenders.

“Therefore, it’s a very good decision by the match officials, who know which player is the second-most back defender, especially since it was the first goal of the match and he would have could have shaped the procedure differently.”

Sky Bet League Two

AFC Wimbledon 0-0 Carlisle United

Incident: Penalty appeal – handball (AFC Wimbledon)

Decision: No penalty awarded (AFC Wimbledon)

Foy says: “I think we can compare this decision to Blackpool’s decision against Rotherham United, as detailed above.

“The main differences are that in this game, the Carlisle United defender is clearly making a movement towards the ball, thus enlarging his body and the ball has traveled a relative distance. Since the ball comes into contact with the defender’s arm, while he is away from his body which prevents the ball from progressing, so overall I think a penalty awarded would have been a better result.”