Croatia's equaliser against England: should it have stood or not?
 

When Perisic scored the equaliser for Croatia against England there has been a debate in the British Media about him being foot high and that the goal therefore shouldn't have stood, but what is your opinion on the matter? Was it a perfectly fine goal? Was it a foul? Or was it too hard to tell in real time so therefore wasn't a clear an obvious error?

For me personally I do think that Perisic's foot was high, and preferably I would've liked the Referee or the Linesman to have noticed in real time, but tbf I didn't see it until the replays kept showing it so I'm voting for it weren't a clear and obvious error.

Poll will be coming shortly.

No, that defender should've been more in front of him or blocked him from the side

Yes, it was a good goal.

I heard a stat on Talk Sport yesterday, after Croatia scored their second goal there was 16 minutes football left, but the ball was in play for 6 minutes. :laugh: that Croat with his cramp :nono:

yeah, he was perfectly capable of playing on with crutches :laugh:

it took him half an hour to come off, he would have been air lifted off quicker :laugh:

I've never really been a fan of discounting goals / chances for having a high boot unless they're literally Liu Kanging the goalkeeper :laugh: Like with this instance last season:



I don't think it should've been a red card, even though there's clearly a lot of contact with Ederson.

In the Perisic example, though:



It doesn't even look like he hits Walker, if anything the foot seems to go over his head. I think it's a fair goal, sadly.