Monday 12 September 2016 16:11, UK
Diego Costa, Laurent Koscielny and Rudy Gestede all caught the eye this weekend, as they scored from spectacular overhead kicks.
But should those goals have been disallowed?
On the opening day of last season, Norwich striker Cameron Jerome struck in similar circumstances against Crystal Palace and his effort was chalked off for dangerous play.
On that day, referee Simon Hooper disallowed the goal because Jerome's foot was close to the head of defender Joel Ward.
Swansea's Kyle Naughton might argue that Costa's boot was dangerously high to his face. Southampton's Jordy Clasie certainly felt some of Koscielny's boot. Eric Lichaj was visibly hurt after being caught in the face by Gestede.
So what exactly is the rule?
This issue is covered by Law 12 where playing in a dangerous manner is defined as "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".
However, the law specifically states: "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."
So should this weekend's incidents - whereby players were flinging their feet six foot in the air near the faces of opponents - be deemed dangerous? Not according to former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher.
He insists the referees were right to award goals to Costa and Koscielny this weekend - and Jerome's should have stood last season.
Discussing Costa's goal on Sky Sports News HQ, he said: "I think it's very, very difficult to award a free-kick against the forward because it was so skilful.
"Eighteen months ago we watched Cameron Jerome score a similar goal and there was outrage that it was disallowed. Now a similar goal has been scored and people are asking why it was given.
"Last year we wanted it corrected. Everybody felt the forward should have been allowed to score that goal because it was so skilful and Costa did the same yesterday."
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
Sky Sports pundit Niall Quinn agrees, arguing that players do not always expect free-kicks when opponents score with overhead kicks.
He said: "It was hanging up in the air and the boot was high, but Kyle Naughton's head wasn't up against the boot when it made contact. It was at the end of the movement.
"Had his head been six or eight inches nearer to the ball at the time of contact I think you'd have had a loud appeal - but none of the Swansea players complained."
Gallagher was similarly adamant that Southampton could have no complaints over Koscielny's effort: "The defender is nowhere near him. The defender isn't close enough to the boot for it to be dangerous. It's the right decision."
Sky Sports pundit Alan McInally perhaps summed up the prevailing mood when he argued that, no matter what the rules state, football fans will always want to see goals from overhead kicks.
"Maybe by the law of the game it should be disallowed if the feet are so high," he said. "But you don't want to take that out of the game.
"If the opportunity is there as a striker, you think 'I'm overhead kicking this in.'"
And perhaps the final word should go to Swansea boss to Francesco Guidolin, who was given the opportunity to complain about Costa's equaliser in his post-match interview on Sky Sports.
"No," he laughed when asked if it should have been disallowed. "It was a very, very good goal."
What do you think? Should all of those goals have stood? Tweet us your views @SkyFootball or have your say in the comments box if you're reading on skysports.com
