Sent off for Impeding

[colins1993]

The visitors began poorly as Ian Pearce was red-carded after five minutes for impeding Andy Johnson's run on goal.

The 30-year-old former West Ham centre-back made a hash of a back pass to Van der Sar and blocked Johnson's run leaving referee Mike Riley little option.

[IASocFan]

Sounds like DOGSO to me. :cool:

[colins1993]

Yup.
I just saw the highlight.
The defender basically tried to hold the attacker back covertly and the attacker made the most of it by falling to the ground.

They did not show the restart though. Should have been an IFK correct????


Sounds like DOGSO to me. :cool:

[IASocFan]

...

They did not show the restart though. Should have been an IFK correct????

That's the correct restart for impeding!

[MassachusettsRef]

But if the defender "held" the attacker, that's a penal offence, is more serious, and warrants a DFK (or PK). Almost as a rule, the majority of such cases are DFK restarts.

[tmaker]

It was clearly holding and not impeding. First, there's contact. Second, the motion of Pearce's arm indicates that he deliberately grabbed Johnson more or less from behind, and Johnson had already beaten him. While Johnson may have gone to ground too easily (I don't think he did; in addition to the hold was Pearce's push and pull that grounded him, IMHO), Pearce's foul was certainly penal.

If anyone was being theatrical, it was Pearce going to ground after he'd clearly fouled Johnson, as if Mike Riley were dumb enough to fall for it (sorry about the pun).

[Ref Flunkie]

It was clearly holding and not impeding. First, there's contact. Second, the motion of Pearce's arm indicates that he deliberately grabbed Johnson more or less from behind, and Johnson had already beaten him. While Johnson may have gone to ground too easily (I don't think he did; in addition to the hold was Pearce's push and pull that grounded him, IMHO), Pearce's foul was certainly penal.

If anyone was being theatrical, it was Pearce going to ground after he'd clearly fouled Johnson, as if Mike Riley were dumb enough to fall for it (sorry about the pun).


It would depend. You can have impeding before contact is made. Many time impeding happens with contact, but the play is "stopped" when the referee decides to call the foul, not when the actual whistle blows. However, in this case if the defender stuck his arm out to slow up the attacker, then it would more then likely be holding.

[colins1993]

The original post on this thread was an excerpt from the The Telegraph and the use of the word "impeding' was the author's choice, not mine.
It obviously was holding but did anyone see the whole match and remember the restart?
Just curious.

It would depend. You can have impeding before contact is made. Many time impeding happens with contact, but the play is "stopped" when the referee decides to call the foul, not when the actual whistle blows. However, in this case if the defender stuck his arm out to slow up the attacker, then it would more then likely be holding.

[Englishref]

The original post on this thread was an excerpt from the The Telegraph and the use of the word "impeding' was the author's choice, not mine.
It obviously was holding but did anyone see the whole match and remember the restart?
Just curious.

It was restarted with a DFK for holding/a foul, whichever you prefer, as contact was made, and the more serious offence punished (i.e. the penal offence of holding as opposed to the non-penal offence of impeding). At least that's what Mike would probably say. ;) :D