[Mystic Mock]

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.

[Nicky91]

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

[Calderyon]

Yes, it was a good goal.

[Cherie]

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. that Croat with his cramp

[bitontheslide]

yeah, he was perfectly capable of playing on with crutches

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

yeah, he was perfectly capable of playing on with crutches

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

[Shaun]

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

Youtube video

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:

Youtube video

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.