Unveiling Referee Secrets: Chris Foy Reveals Controversial EFL Decisions, Sheds Light on Huddersfield and Coventry Calls!

Former Premier League referee Chris Foy delves into critical match decisions from recent Sky Bet Championship, League One, and League Two games in his book, "Behind the Whistle."

The objective of "Behind the Whistle" is to offer EFL club supporters an insider's perspective on the decision-making process and to provide clarity on specific calls, thereby enhancing their understanding of the interpretation of the laws of the game.

As part of a regular feature on We following the conclusion of a matchday, Foy is here to run you through some refereeing matters in the EFL.

Sky Bet Championship

West Bromwich Albion 1-2 Huddersfield Town

Incident: Goal scored - potential foul (Huddersfield Town)

Decision: Goal disallowed (Huddersfield Town)

Foy asserts that the attacker's actions solely aim to hinder the defender and by not even attempting to play the ball, they effectively restrict him from contesting for the ball into the box. Considering the impact and repercussions of the attacker's push, which creates space for the eventual scorer, I believe that, although subjective, the decision to disallow the goal was correct.

Coventry City 3-3 Watford

Incident: Penalty (Coventry City)

Penalty awarded to Coventry City as Foy concludes that the ball clearly hits the defending player's arm. At this stage, the referee's decision relies on a subjective assessment to ascertain whether the arm is in an abnormal position or increasing the player's body size.

Given the high velocity at which the ball is traveling, the considerable gap that separates the attacker and defender, and, notably, the arms of the defender being in a position that can be justified based on his actions, the more favorable outcome would have entailed allowing the game to continue.

Sky Bet League One

Leyton Orient 0-3 Stevenage

Incident: Potential penalty (Leyton Orient)

Decision: Penalty not awarded (Leyton Orient)

Foy believes that the defender faces a considerable risk of being penalized in this particular challenge, which could potentially lead to a penalty kick being given. It appears that the attacking player has managed to get ahead of the defender, and in an effort to catch up, the defender has extended their arm and held onto the attacking player, thereby hindering their advancement and ultimately causing them to fall to the ground.

Sky Bet League Two

Harrogate Town 0-1 Barrow

Incident: Potential penalty (Harrogate Town)

Decision: Penalty awarded (Harrogate Town)

Foy says: This is a very good example of what should be penalised when officials are making a judgment on a handball decision.

The defender's arms are positioned above shoulder height, with the right arm noticeably extended, causing an unnatural enlargement of the body.

As the ball is being directed towards the defender after a header from the attacker, the defender's deliberate arm movement away from the body leads to direct contact with the ball. Therefore, awarding a penalty kick is the appropriate decision.

Walsall 1-0 Colchester United

Incident: Potential goal scored (Walsall)

Decision: Goal disallowed - offside (Walsall)

Foy says: A tight judgement call but a very good decision by the assistant referee to disallow the Walsall goal for offside.

Three attacking players are positioned near the penalty spot, potentially being in an offside position. The assistant referee observes if the deepest of the three, who may ultimately score a goal, makes contact with or plays the ball. However, it appears that he made his move prematurely in this instance and finds himself offside when the free-kick is taken.