pisilinuxworld.org

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest action in Sky Bet 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…

Barrow 1-1 Swindon

Incident 1: Possible red card, denial of an obvious goal (DOG) – Barrow

Decision: Red card awarded (DOG) – Barrow

Foy says: “This was the first of two red-card decisions that the referee got spot on in this game, as Barrow’s goalkeeper was sent off for a deliberate handball that denied an obvious goal to Swindon.

“As the shot is made from range, the referee is in an excellent position to identify that it was clearly a goal-bound effort that would have entered the goal, had the goalkeeper not deliberately handled the ball outside of his box.

“Because the contact from the goalkeeper diverts the ball, which was clearly heading into goal, the referee correctly identifies this as a straight-red card offence for denial of an obvious goal.”

Incident 2: Possible red card, violent conduct – Swindon Town

Decision: Red card awarded, violent conduct – Swindon Town

Foy says: “This is another correct decision from the referee in this match. He shows Swindon Town’s no. 10 a red card for violent conduct.

“The referee and assistant referee do well to spot this action in a crowded penalty area, highlighting the importance of awareness, communication and teamwork. Swindon’s no. 10 and Barrow’s no. 42 are close to each other and the Swindon player swings his elbow, with excessive force, into the face of his opponent, forcing him to the ground.

“The nature of this action is deemed a non-footballing one due to its aggressiveness and it therefore meets the threshold for violent conduct. After consultation with his fellow officials, the referee correctly shows a straight red card for the second time in this match.”

Crewe Alexandra 1-0 Morecambe

Incident: Possible penalty, holding – Crewe Alexandra

Decision: Penalty awarded, holding – Crewe Alexandra

Foy says: “After awarding this penalty to Crewe Alexandra, the referee clearly communicates to the players that it was given for a holding offence by Morecambe no. 24 on the Crewe no. 5.

“With the benefit of viewing the replay, we can see there is contact between the players, however the action of holding is neither sustained nor impactful. It therefore falls below the threshold for penalising, as it was not clearly impactful, particularly as Crew no. 5 is still able to get to the ball and has a clear shot at goal.

“The correct decision in this case would have been to allow play to continue with a Morecambe throw-in from the far corner.”

Notts County 2-0 Accrington Stanley

Incident: Goal scored, possible handball – Notts County

Decision: Goal disallowed, handball – Notts County

Foy says: “This situation highlights the handball Law and how it applies when the ball directly enters the goal after making contact with the arm of an attacker. Even if the ball makes accidental contact and then enters the goal, or the same attacker scores immediately, the Laws of the Game require the goal to be disallowed.

“As the ball comes in towards Notts County no. 6, the ball makes contact with his arm and enters the goal.

“Even though the arm is within his own body line and this is an accidental handball, once the referee identifies this, the goal must be disallowed.”