Behind The Whistle: Former Premier League referee Chris Foy explains the most recent League Two selections

In Behind the Whistle, former Premier League referee Chris Foy goes by way of a number of key match selections from the most recent motion in Sky Guess League Two.

Behind the Whistle goals to provide supporters of EFL golf equipment an perception into the decision-making concerns and likewise clarification of sure calls to supply an understanding of how the legal guidelines of the sport are interpreted.

As a part of a daily characteristic on Sky Sports activities following the conclusion of a matchday, Foy can be right here to run you thru some refereeing issues within the EFL…

Barrow 1-1 Swindon

Incident 1: Doable crimson card, denial of an apparent purpose (DOG) – Barrow

Choice: Pink card awarded (DOG) – Barrow

Foy says: “This was the primary of two red-card selections that the referee acquired spot on on this sport, as Barrow’s goalkeeper was despatched off for a deliberate handball that denied an apparent purpose to Swindon.

“Because the shot is created from vary, the referee is in a superb place to establish that it was clearly a goal-bound effort that may have entered the purpose, had the goalkeeper not intentionally dealt with the ball outdoors of his field.

“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: Doable crimson card, violent conduct – Swindon City

Choice: Pink card awarded, violent conduct – Swindon City

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 properly to identify this motion in a crowded penalty space, highlighting the significance of consciousness, communication and teamwork. Swindon’s no. 10 and Barrow’s no. 42 are shut to one another and the Swindon participant swings his elbow, with extreme power, into the face of his opponent, forcing him to the bottom.

“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: Doable penalty, holding – Crewe Alexandra

Choice: 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 good thing about viewing the replay, we are able to see there may be contact between the gamers, nonetheless the motion of holding is neither sustained nor impactful. It due to this fact falls under the edge for penalising, because it was not clearly impactful, notably as Crew no. 5 continues to be in a position to get to the ball and has a transparent shot at purpose.

“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: Purpose scored, attainable handball – Notts County

Choice: Purpose 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.

“Because the ball is available in in direction of Notts County no. 6, the ball makes contact along with his arm and enters the purpose.

“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.”