a high foot in a one on one in the middle of the pitch is illegal and even a bookable offence, but inside the box surrounded by players that could and have been kicked in the face its legal.
should this be?
should overhead kicks be allowed?
posted on 19/9/16
After what happened with Martial and Janmaat yesterday, and various other incidents, should we ban heading? Pretty sure we see far more injuries from clash of heads.
posted on 19/9/16
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 29 minutes ago
After what happened with Martial and Janmaat yesterday, and various other incidents, should we ban heading? Pretty sure we see far more injuries from clash of heads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
posted on 19/9/16
I think we need to differentiate between a foot up with studs showing and an OHK.
The former is always a free kick and dangerous. The latter is a great skill and unless the defenders head is there first I think it should be allowed.
posted on 19/9/16
It depends on interpretation I guess but it's a grey area for sure.
posted on 19/9/16
A defender putting his head in the way of an overhead kick would never be an indirect free kick to the attackers. What a silly statement.
If an overhead kicker kicked someone in the head, it would never be indirect - it would be a direct free kick. Dangerous play is only given when there is no contact - contact is always a direct free kick.
Everything depends on proximity for any decision. A high boot with studs showing is only penalised when someone else was in danger. Some overhead kicks should be given as free kicks but most are not given if the kicker contacts with the ball
posted on 19/9/16
I doubt there's a law stating it can be done depending on where it's attempted. Afaik, if there's an oppo head in the immediate vicinity, it's dangerous play - full stop.
That said though, it's true that refs in recent times seem to be more willing to turn a blind eye on overhead kicks in the box when a player's surrounded by opponents.
All in the sake of the spectacle? It certainly shouldn't be that way, and FA refereeing committees should be clear and emphatic on this point, but there's a lingering suspicion they might not be in a day and age when money seems to talk louder than common sense.
posted on 19/9/16
Being one who's favorite footballing times is the 70's, yes it should be allowed, but, saying that the game is a lot faster these days and a bit off good refereeing is called for, showing studs, as soon as the foot leaves the floor the studs are showing, but usually good referees turn a blind eye!..
Is a defensive overhead kick not allowed, or should a pen be given?..
posted on 19/9/16
Is a defensive overhead kick not allowed, or should a pen be given?..
-------
In old terminology (dunno what the current term might be), it was described as dangerous play, and would therefore be punished with an indirect free kick, not a penalty. Not so sure if there's actual contact though; in that case perhaps it's awarded as a direct free kick. Maybe someone else can clarify this last point.
posted on 19/9/16
I think if you mean to hit it with your foot, miss by a good 10-12 inches and end up shinning it into the goal by blind luck, then clown biased pundits shouldn't claim it was brilliance and nominate it for the best goal of all time.
That's criminal.
posted on 19/9/16
Diving headers should be banned too then, so close to feet its terrifying.