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…
Coventry City 2-2 Sheffield United
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Coventry received a yellow card for this incident… was it an attempted act of deception or a genuine penalty?
Incident: Possible penalty, foul (Coventry City)
Decision: No penalty, simulation (Coventry City)
Foy says: “The referee does very well here to correctly identify an act of simulation by Coventry’s No 23, particularly considering the quickly developing phase of play.
“Although the Sheffield United No 14 does initially go in for the tackle, he turns his foot away at the last moment and therefore makes very minor, if any, contact with his opponent.
“However, the Coventry player goes to ground in a manner not consistent with, at most, a very minor touch on his foot, seemingly looking to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty kick.
“The referee is in a good position to identify the actions of the attacking player and correctly awards Sheffield United a defensive free-kick and shows a yellow card for simulation.”
Oxford United 2-6 Middlesbrough
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Oxford defender Matthew Clarke made a reckless tackle in the box, resulting in a spot-kick and a yellow card. Should the card have been red?
Incident: Possible penalty and red card (Middlesbrough)
Decision: Penalty and caution (Middlesbrough)
Foy says: “The referee gets this one right on both fronts. Although Middlesbrough’s No 50 had already played the ball by the time the contact is made by the defender, the challenge is clearly reckless and warrants a spot-kick and yellow card.
“Oxford No 5 charges across and commits to a challenge which catches his opponent very late, which is why the penalty was awarded. However, whilst there is speed in the challenge, it does not warrant a straight red card as it doesn’t have excessive force.
“A penalty and caution is the correct outcome.”
Lincoln City 2-3 Wycombe Wanderers
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Did the Lincoln City goalkeeper George Wickens deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity?
Incident: Possible red card, denial of goalscoring opportunity – DOGSO (Lincoln City)
Decision: No red card, no DOGSO (Lincoln City)
Foy says: “In my view, the referee gets this one right as there is too much doubt in determining whether or not the clear foul by the Lincoln City goalkeeper has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
“As the ball is lifted over the goalkeeper by Wycombe Wanderers’ No 12, there is doubt that the attacker will retain possession or control of the ball and there is likely cover from two Lincoln City defenders.
“These elements mean that this is not an obvious goalscoring opportunity, therefore the yellow card is correctly shown.”
Shrewsbury Town 3-2 Birmingham City
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The referee awarded a yellow card for the Birmingham player’s high challenge. Should the high boot have warranted a red?
Incident: Possible red card, serious foul play (Birmingham City)
Decision: No red card (Birmingham City)
Foy says: “Whilst Birmingham City’s No 14 may argue that he is making an attempt to play the ball, he was very fortunate not to be shown a red card here. Although he keeps his eyes on the ball the whole way, the boot being raised and making contact with the head of the Shrewsbury player means that the challenge endangers the safety of the opponent.
“The view of the referee is from behind the challenge, however, between himself and the assistant referee, they should have identified that the high boot warranted a straight red card.”
Carlisle United 0-0 Doncaster Rovers
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Carlisle had a goal disallowed for offside against Doncaster. Did the linesman make the correct decision?
Incident: Goal scored, possible offside (Carlisle United)
Decision: Goal disallowed, offside (Carlisle United)
Foy says: “This is excellent work from the assistant referee as he identifies, firstly that the Carlisle No 9 is in an offside position at the moment of the shot is taken by Carlisle’s No 14, and secondly that he then touches the ball before it is eventually put in the net.
“As the initial shot comes in and is saved, No 9 is in an offside position.
“As the shot is saved by the goalkeeper, No 9 makes contact with the ball diverting it into the path of No 3, who slams it home. Because of this touch and his initial position, the assistant referee correctly puts his flag up as No 9 interferes with play. With the speed of the move and at such a crucial stage of the contest, this was excellent officiating.”
