WE don’t often have the pleasure of applauding five goals from England in a competitive match.

The ITV pundits were however concerned about the validity of one of them, the penalty. Not by the kick but the award of the foul.

It brought into focus one law that is not only misunderstood but if the players at a game I refereed last season are anything to go by, it is not even known by many people.

More importantly it highlighted the change to the Law, made a couple of seasons ago. This is the Law of ‘impeding’.

This offence has been in the Laws for many years but many people may still think of it as obstruction.

The Law says ‘an indirect free kick will be awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent’.

What is new is the addition that if contact is made in the act of impeding, then it is instead, a direct free kick.

Impeding, the Law says, means ‘moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction, when the ball is not within the playing distance of either player.

This means a player can shield the ball, providing it remains within his playing distance.

The Laws also acknowledges that every player has a right to their position on the field of play and standing in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

This means that if, at a corner for instance, an opponent stands in front of a goalkeeper that is not an offence. It becomes one if the goalkeeper moves and the opponent then moves to block his way.

In England’s Euro2020 qualifier, the Czech Republic player involved, made no attempt to play the ball, which he was nowhere near. It was clear that his only

intention was to block Raheem Sterling’s chase of the ball. He threw himself in front of Sterling, making contact with him, not only impeding his progress but bringing him to the ground. A clear foul.