Behind the Whistle: Chris Foy explains latest EFL decisions including Millwall, Plymouth and Stevenage

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

Behind the Whistle aims to provide supporters of EFL clubs with an insight into decision-making considerations and also provide clarification on certain calls to provide insight into how the laws of the game are interpreted.

As part of a regular feature on Sky Sports after a matchday, Foy will be here to talk you through some of the refereeing stuff in the EFL…

West Brom 0-0 Millwall

Incident: Possible fine (Millwall)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Millwall)

Foy says: Making a decision in a busy penalty area where the corner is tapped during an aerial challenge can be difficult, so this is a really good spot for the referee in real time.

Both players jump towards the ball reasonably well, but at the last moment the West Brom defender’s left arm is clearly moved and raised above head height and makes clear contact with the ball. A positive and correct judgment for awarding the penalty kick.

Plymouth Argyle 6-2 Norwich City

Incident: Goal scored – potential offside (Plymouth Argyle)

Decision: Goal awarded (Plymouth Argyle)

Foy says: This decision concerns Argyle’s number 9 and the referees’ assessment of his potential impact on Norwich City’s number 6 defender.

There is no doubt that when the ball is initially headed forward, the Argyle No. 9 returns from an offside position. I believe his obvious action affects the Norwich City No.6’s ability to play or compete for the ball, so he should be penalized for offside. That’s why I think it would have been right to disallow the goal for offside.

Cheltenham Town 0-3 Stevenage

Incident: Goal scored – potential offside (Stevenage)

Decision: Goal awarded (Stevenage)

Foy says: This is a really tricky decision, with the decision made even more difficult for the assistant referee considering the number of touches from different players in the penalty area.

We can use the six yard marks as a guide here, and it appears that the penultimate opponent (Cheltenham Town No. 5) is in the half-turn and is therefore slightly deeper than if he were standing head-on. Without the use of technology it is difficult to judge with 100 percent certainty, but it seems a very good decision by the assistant to allow the goal.

Doncaster Rovers 2-1 Gillingham

Incident: Goal scored – indirect free kick award (Doncaster Rovers)

Decision: Goal awarded (Doncaster Rovers)

Foy says: The referee has a very good view of the Gillingham defender who takes a clear action by playing the ball with his foot to his own goalkeeper. Therefore, when the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands, he is penalized for what could be called a ‘back pass’. ‘.

The correct decision was to award an indirect free kick, from which Doncaster Rovers eventually scored. You don’t see that very often these days, so the referee had to be called in to make this right decision.

Harrogate Town 3-2 Salford City

Incident: Possible penalty (Harrogate Town)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Harrogate Town)

Foy says: I think this particular decision was touched upon in the challenge, but I’m not sure it meets the high threshold for awarding a penalty.

Based on the footage I’ve seen, I’d probably want to be more certain that the defender’s contact has consequences and that a foul has been committed. This falls into the category of ‘subjective decision’, over which the referee does have a good assessment position.