After the whistle: Former Premier League Judge Chris Foy explains EFL’s latest decisions | Football news

After the whistle, the former Premier League Judge Chris Foy passes a selection of major match decisions from EFL weekend action.

After the whistle, it aims to give EFL club supporters an overview of decision -making considerations and also clarifying certain calls to provide an understanding of how the laws of the game are interpreted.

As part of a regular feature in Sky Sports after completing a match myth, Foy will be here to direct you through some issues of trial at EFL…

City of Bristol 1-1 Hull City

Incident: Possible Red Card, Serious Hate (Hull City)

Decision: Red Card (Hull City)

Foy says: “To me, this right red is shown based on the lack of control in this air challenge, which endangers the safety of the opponent at the end of treatment.

“Although at first glance, it looks like Hull City No 12 just mistakes his treatment and captures his opponent late, repetitions suggest that it is actually worse than that.

“As he enters the challenge, Hull No 12 is air and lunges with both feet. He is not in controlling his body at that point. The speed and strength of the challenge also endangers the security of the opponent.

“The referee accurately identifies that this challenge is a serious hateful game and Markon the Red Card.”

Norwich City 1-1 Oxford United

Incident: The scored goal, possible offside (Oxford United)

Decision: Given purpose (Oxford United)

Foy says: “This is an excellent official of officialization, as the judge and assistant judge communicate excellently to understand exactly what happened.

“While it is clear to see that Oxford United’s goal scorer, No 9, is in an offside position, there is no offensive offensive if the attacker receives the ball directly from the cast.

“While the cast does not go directly to the attacker, judge and assistant judge work effectively to identify it, first Oxford United do not touch the ball, and second is the Norwich No 3 that plays the balls which are subsequently withdrawn by another defender, Norwich No. 20.

“Therefore, the Oxford United No. 9 does not make an offensive offend, and the goal is given correctly.”

Peterborough United 1-1 Wycombe Wanderers

Incident: Possible punishment (Peterborough United)

Decision: No penalties (Peterborough United)

Foy says: “Goodbye to see that the judge here has not correctly identified any contact in Peterborough United.

“Although it is a very good judgment by the judge to clearly identify that the goalkeeper does not contact his challenge, Peterborough United’s actions are simulation, so the judge should have given Wycombe a free defense and warned the attacker”

Transmere Rovers 2-1 Bromley

Incident: Possible punishment, foul (bromley)

Decision: Without penalties (bromley)

Foy says: “Although I have sympathy with the protector in this type of incident, for me, the tranmere Rovers were lucky that a blow instead was not given against them here.

“While tranmere No. 2 goes to clean the ball away inside the penalty area, he is thrown into the ball by the Bromley striker.

“I think the contact is enough to guarantee the player to go down, and in my eyes the correct judgment here would be to be given a penalty.”