Behind the Whistle: Chris Foy explains latest EFL decisions including Andy Carroll’s red card and Coventry calls
A midweek special in the Behind the Whistle feature this week, as former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes through a selection of key match decisions from the latest Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two action.
Although many decisions made on the pitch are of a subjective nature, 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, starting with the below.
Blackburn Rovers 1-1 Coventry City
In the absence of conclusive evidence, the goal was awarded to Coventry City in the game against Blackburn Rovers
Incident: Goal scored – Potential handball (Coventry City)
Decision: Goal awarded (Coventry City)
Foy says: This is an extremely difficult decision for the match officials to make in real time.
Even with the benefit of analyzing the footage from different angles and at different speeds after the game, there isn’t conclusive evidence as to whether the ball hits the hand of the eventual goalscorer or comes off his chest into the goal.
In this situation, the officials have to make a judgment on what they see, and if they deem that they haven’t seen anything conclusive in real-time, they’re unable to make the call to disallow the goal. As such, in the absence of conclusive evidence, I would have to side with the on-field decision.
Reading 1-1 Luton Town
This particular incident is split into two parts; the decision to disallow the goal and the awarding of a yellow card for a deliberate handball. Both of these were the correct calls
Incident: Goal scored – potential handball (Reading)
Decision: Goal disallowed – second caution given for handball (Reading)
Foy says: This particular incident is split into two parts; the decision to disallow the goal and the awarding of a yellow card for a deliberate handball. Both of these were the correct calls.
The important factor here is that the Reading attacker has deliberately used his arm to guide the ball into the goal. An accidental handball, while still resulting in the goal being disallowed, wouldn’t have resulted in a caution being issued.
Given it was a deliberate act, a yellow card was awarded, and a subsequent dismissal given the player in question had already been cautioned earlier in the game.
Andy Carroll thought he had given Reading a 2-0 lead against Luton, only for the referee to disallow the goal and give the striker a second yellow card for handball!
Accrington Stanley 1-2 Peterborough United
This is a tight decision, with the defender holding his position on the edge of the box and the Peterborough attacker making the run in behind the defensive line
Incident: Goal scored – potential offside (Peterborough United)
Decision: Goal awarded (Peterborough United)
Foy says: This is a tight decision, with the defender holding his position on the edge of the box and the Peterborough attacker making the run in behind the defensive line.
If you use the edge of the box as a guide, it does appear that the attacker has strayed ever so slightly into an offside position. With the benefit of slowing down the footage, I think this is a decision that should have been given as offside with the goal disallowed.
Ipswich Town 2-1 Port Vale
The officials awarded Ipswich Town a penalty after the defender’s arm was raised preventing the ball from passing
Incident: Potential penalty – handball (Ipswich Town)
Decision: Penalty awarded (Ipswich Town)
Foy says: I don’t think there can be too many complaints with this decision, as the on-field team make a positive judgment and award a penalty kick.
The defender’s left arm is clearly raised and makes his ‘body bigger’, which prevents the ball from going past him – the officials were correct in awarding a penalty.
Gillingham 2-0 Leyton East
Once the defender commits to a challenge and then doesn’t win the ball, there is always a risk of a foul that results in the ‘denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity’
Incident: Potential red card – DOGSO (Leyton Orient)
Decision: Red card awarded – DOGSO (Leyton Orient)
Foy says: Similar to the decision reviewed in an earlier column this week, once the defender commits to a challenge and then doesn’t win the ball, there is always a risk of a foul that results in the ‘denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity’.
In these circumstances, the referee has to judge if any other defenders can make an impact to sufficiently mitigate a red card for DOGSO. Given the close proximity to the goal, at the moment of the foul, neither defender has the ability to challenge the attacker in my view, and therefore a red card was the correct decision.
Stevenage 1-0 Doncaster Rovers
There was a potential red card for Stevenage in the game against Doncaster Rovers after some serious foul play
Incident: Potential red card – Serious foul play (Stevenage)
Decision: Yellow card awarded (Stevenage)
Foy says: I think the officials handled this particular incident well and made the correct decision in showing the yellow card.
While the challenge comes at speed, the player has a high degree of control and the point of contact with the opposing player is low. Therefore, a yellow card for a reckless challenge, rather than a red card for serious foul play, is the best outcome on this occasion.
