Let the debate begin

[Scunner]

You don't actually have to "slam" your studs into a player for it to be deemed dangerous play. Dangerous play can be punished for intent, and also where contact was nearly made. We often see people recoil from a flying foot heading towards their face, and it is punished.

As overhead kicks don't often scream in from 35 yards, you can assume that anyone attempting one will be in or around the penalty area and in the majority of cases will have an opposition player directly behind him with a head about the same height as the attackers foot is just about to be. This IS dangerous play. Football may soon lose some of it's classic goals if we continue down this route.

[Highlander]

I would suggest that only one of these can be construed as being dangerous play.

[Scunner]

Only because the defender is too slow in one of them

[tiggsy]

I can only say in this instance the Rooney scissor kick was not dangerous, as Richards was behind him. The other player Zabaleta was at least 5 yards away (the photo is misleading) This was a great goal and was well deserving of the accolade it was given.

[Scunner]

Another thing - how often do we see a high foot penalised, when in reality it is a low head...

[stoop]

I think the rule states something about the proximity of the opposing player. If there is nobody near when a player tries an overhead or a scissors kick then it's OK. If he stands the chance of knocking someone's head off then it's seen as dangerous and the ref can blow for a free kick.

[stoop]

Another thing - how often do we see a high foot penalised, when in reality it is a low head...

Totally agree. That's the problem - the refs are not consistent. However I do honestly thing the guy who sent Nani off was sticking to the letter of the law - as he saw it as a high foooted, studs showing tackle which could have caused serious injury.

[Piscoe]

But my point is that how on earth can you distinguish between what is deemed dangerous and what is not? Are we seriously suggesting its not dangerous to lift you foot above waist height so long as you have checked the proximity of opposing players and they out of harms way? If someone is near by then it's dangerous and a player is sent off? On the basis that no-one has 360 degree vision it can only ever be deemed as dangerous and therefore lifting your foot above waist height and thereby showing your studs is a red card offence. If that is what we are saying then we should have at least half a dozen red cards for every game.

Nani clearly didn't see the defender who was racing towards him. The defender ran in to Nani's high foot as he was attempting to control the ball coming to him at above waist height yet it was Nani who was deemed as playing dangerously.

If this is the way the rules are going then I despair.

[Highlander]

So is this a dangerous challenge or not  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDTYUFn1RRY&feature=endscreen&NR=1

[ronzeus]

OUCH !!!!!