Why are overhead kicks not dangerous play ?

oohaahmortimer

Think it was koscielny for Arsenal and Costa for Chelsea today this weekend both score overheads and were inches away from taking defenders heads off .
I can't see how they are allowed ,is it just because it looks good
Any refs out there with a view on it

seth plum

Good question.
There is a quote from the great Danny Blanchflower.
'It he puts his head down, don't disappoint him '.

Refs judgement I would have thought.

red_murph

Tough one, would love to know the actual rule as I thought both were dangerous.

Addickted2TheReds

oohaahmortimer said:

Think it was koscielny for Arsenal and Costa for Chelsea today this weekend both score overheads and were inches away from taking defenders heads off .
I can't see how they are allowed ,is it just because it looks good
Any refs out there with a view on it

Gestede for Villa as well.

Garrymanilow

Because they're awesome. General rule of thumb seems to be that if it goes in, the ref leaves it. If it doesn't they have a chat with the player. Cameron Jerome had a cracker disallowed against Palace last season and it just felt wrong.

RedChaser

seth plum said:

Good question.
There is a quote from the great Danny Blanchflower.
'It he puts his head down, don't disappoint him '.

Refs judgement I would have thought.

Exactly what Pearce did yesterday around knee high to a ball that was getting away from him and his oppo certainly didn't disappoint him, he was out cold. No foul but the ref never stopped play immediately, twat.

RedChaser

Costa actually made contact with Naughton perhaps the sight of claret might have changed Marriner's thinking, whatever there needs to be consistency.............so we can expect the controversy to continue ad infinitum then .

Carter

I got a pearler of a black eye from an overhead kick from a guy when I was still playing, I stooped to head the ball but was definitely not low. Learned my lesson and held back to block everytime I suspected someone was going to try one of them since.

Grey area but I think they are a wonderful thing when pulled off so keep it as is (nobody knows)

ForeverAddickted

I think it should be clear... A player can do an overhead kick yet if their foot connects with an opponent's head they're NOT stooping below shoulder height to head the ball.

Moment they stoop to head the ball they've got to be prepared they're going to be potential kicked

Macronate

I was thinking about this today after seeing Gestede score in the Villa game.

Technically speaking I suppose it is dangerous play but you can't ban it, would be taking away a techical facet of the game which requires timing, athleticism, eye coordination and instinct.

Don't tell Jonatan Johannson about this thread.

Macronate

I was thinking about this today after seeing Gestede score in the Villa game.

Technically speaking I suppose it is dangerous play but you can't ban it, would be taking away a techical facet of the game which requires timing, athleticism, eye coordination and instinct.

Don't tell Jonatan Johannson about this thread, there's a 65% chance he'll come looking for you.

North Lower Neil

Macronate said:

I was thinking about this today after seeing Gestede score in the Villa game.

Technically speaking I suppose it is dangerous play but you can't ban it, would be taking away a techical facet of the game which requires timing, athleticism, eye coordination and instinct.

Don't tell Jonatan Johannson about this thread, there's a 65% chance he'll come looking for you.

Not the scariest guy though is he?

He might run after me like he's going through treacle too.

oohaahmortimer

I think just cos it looks good doesn't mean it isn't dangerous ,
when someone goes for a ball above the knee with foot up its dangerous but now cos it looks good with an overhead it's ok up to the neck .
Defenders have to get a kick in the head to get a free kick otherwise it's let go , ridiculous
Ok if no one around but to me it's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed (especially when it's Chelsea and Arsenal scoring them)

#killjoy

RedChaser

oohaahmortimer said:

I think just cos it looks good doesn't mean it isn't dangerous ,
when someone goes for a ball above the knee with foot up its dangerous but now cos it looks good with an overhead it's ok up to the neck .
Defenders have to get a kick in the head to get a free kick otherwise it's let go , ridiculous
Ok if no one around but to me it's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed (especially when it's Chelsea and Arsenal scoring them)

#killjoy

What about the Spanners?....................Forget that, goes without saying

Simonsen

One of the more dangerous things in football. I speak as a centre-half who once had a hospital visit after one Sunday morning bell-end thought he'd try one.

Dazzler21

seth plum said:

Good question.
There is a quote from the great Danny Blanchflower.
'It he puts his head down, don't disappoint him '.

Refs judgement I would have thought.

What if he doesn't put his head down what if your overhead kick is at his head height?

Dazzler21

Garrymanilow said:

Because they're awesome. General rule of thumb seems to be that if it goes in, the ref leaves it. If it doesn't they have a chat with the player. Cameron Jerome had a cracker disallowed against Palace last season and it just felt wrong.

Problem was by the letter of the law it is correct to disallow.

guinnessaddick

RedChaser said:

seth plum said:

Good question.
There is a quote from the great Danny Blanchflower.
'It he puts his head down, don't disappoint him '.

Refs judgement I would have thought.

Exactly what Pearce did yesterday around knee high to a ball that was getting away from him and his oppo certainly didn't disappoint him, he was out cold. No foul but the ref never stopped play immediately, twat.

He was going to blow his whistle, when he saw the ball break for a Fleetwood attack, he then waved play on. It wasn't a foul, however he should have stopped play.

I remember playing one Sunday morning when a did a diving header to head the ball off a defender's foot about a foot from the floor. I won the ball and never got a boot in the face. The ref blew for a free kick for dangerous plat against me. Followed by me telling the ref he was wrong in giving them a free kick. The defender just looked at me and thought I'm marking a right nutter.

Greenie

BUT what is the difference between an 'overhead kick, 'bicycle kick' and 'scissor kick'?

Halix

Having looked at it from both sides, the pros and cons and carefully weighing it up, couldnt JJ do them proper good!!!

GRAY9

I thought exactly the same thing when Costa scored yesterday. Great athleticism but surely has to be dangerous play if there is a player close by.

MuttleyCAFC

I love a great overhead kick, but if a player gets serious eye damage or similar, they will start to interpret differently! For me, it is only not dangerous if there are no players around you.

Halix

Perhaps this is where it all start, overhead kicks are dangerous,, then any kicking could collect with an opponents meat and two veg!, next thing you know some ponsey nob called Webb-Ellis is picking it up and running with it, and that way madness prevails.

superchrissypowell

I wonder what the black lawyers association have to say about the matter?

cafc_harry

If it's there to be hit you have every right to go for it with your foot as your head. Maine we need to ban keepers diving at feet if we're getting rid of overheads. You stoop down to a ball you know the risk you're taking in that instance. Otherwise all the while you're not handballing it its anyway you can possibly score.

MuttleyCAFC

Goalkeepers take risks with their own health as does a stooping player. There is a difference.

PeterGage

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct covers "dangerous play". The law,, in relation to dangerous play, states

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes
preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to
an opponent".

It is clearly down to individual referees to judge any such potential incident and thus one can only assume that in the Costa case, the referee deemed it wasn't dangerous. It seems the Swansea players agreed, in that I didn't see any of their players protesting.

oohaahmortimer

PeterGage said:

It is clearly down to individual referees to judge any such potential incident and thus one can only assume that in the Costa case, the referee deemed it wasn't dangerous. It seems the Swansea players agreed, in that I didn't see any of their players protesting.

i didn't think football was like cricket where you had to appeal to get a decision , the swansea defenders head was kicked but because players have gotten away with dangerous overheads forever it seems the play is allowed

PeterGage

Your "appear" remark is somewhat frivolous. The point I made was that no Swansea player protested, which had they felt the challenge was dangerous, they certainly would have.

PeterGage

appeal even

oohaahmortimer

it was dangerous whether they appealed or not , to say that it is not because they didn't protest holds no weight , the players are thick to not protest if that's what is needed

look at the video of it, Costas foot is high and catches the swansea player and even the no.17 pulls his head back

that was clearly dangerous play but because it looks good they let it go

2.05 on youtube below