Revealed: Chris Foy Deconstructs Critical EFL Calls Involving Southampton, Huddersfield, and Wycombe

Former Premier League referee Chris Foy analyzes significant match decisions from the Sky Bet Championship, League One, and League Two in his book Behind the Whistle. The aim of the book is to offer EFL club supporters a deeper understanding of the factors involved in decision-making and to provide clarification on specific calls, thus shedding light on the interpretation of the laws of the game.

As part of a regular feature on We following the conclusion of a matchday, Foy will be presenting a discussion on refereeing matters in the EFL. Let's begin with the following topic.

Sky Bet Championship

Huddersfield Town 0-1 Leicester City

Incident: Potential penalty (Huddersfield Town)

Decision: No penalty awarded (Huddersfield Town)

Foy suggests that what occurred is merely a competitive clash between the attacker and defender, both participating in similar actions such as shirt pulling or arm grabbing.

Following the initial contact, the defender's challenge is executed at the right moment, successfully obtaining possession of the ball. In my opinion, the referee has positioned himself well and made the appropriate decision, considering that contact is a natural part of football and this incident does not meet the criteria for penalization.

Southampton 4-4 Norwich City

Incident: Potential penalty (Southampton)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Southampton)

Foy says: Whilst there is contact, it is initiated by the attacker, who steps into the space of the oncoming defender.

Considering the actions of the defender and the motivation of the attacker, it is my belief that the defender's intention was not to make a challenge. As a result, the expected outcome in this situation would have been no penalty and play continuing.

Sky Bet League One

Bristol Rovers 1-1 Barnsley

Incident: Potential offside (Bristol Rovers)

Decision: Onside - goal awarded (Bristol Rovers)

Foy expresses that this decision is quite critical, as the assistant referee needs to determine if any of the attackers, who are making similar runs, are positioned offside, and if so, whether an offside offense occurs.

In my opinion, the official made the correct call - not only is the Bristol Rovers No 9 even with the second-to-last opponent, thus onside, but even if he were offside, he would not be seen as actively participating in the play since he neither makes contact with the ball nor affects any defender's ability to play it.

The eventual goal scorer is clearly onside and therefore the correct decision has been made to award the goal.

Lincoln City 3-0 Wycombe Wanderers

Incident: Potential goal scored (Wycombe Wanderers)

Decision: Foul given - no goal awarded (Wycombe Wanderers)

The referee promptly penalizes Wycombe Wanderers' No 6 for restraining the Lincoln City defender on the outskirts of the penalty area. In my opinion, for this incident to constitute a foul, the attacker must engage in a distinct and continuous action that significantly affects the outcome. However, it seems that both players are equally involved in a grappling situation. "Six of one, half a dozen of the other," if you will.

Having the benefit of a replay, I think the better course of action would have been to allow the goal to stand.

Sky Bet League Two

AFC Wimbledon 1-1 Wrexham

Incident: Potential penalty (AFC Wimbledon)

Decision: Penalty awarded (AFC Wimbledon)

Foy acknowledges that contact between the players exists, so the referee had to assess whether it exceeded the necessary level to be considered a foul.

Considering that the forward is well-positioned to compete for the header and the defender does appear to make contact by placing his hands on the attacker's back and pushing forward, thus hindering the attacker's ability to head the ball, it is reasonable to award a penalty for a pushing offense, and I concur with this decision.