I'm not buying that, the duty of care is very much on the player chasing not to bring down the player in front of them.
Yes. But no. But yes.
Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path
to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not
within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way
of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
I'm on the @bloove warpath against the laws here. So, laporte does run across the attacker. That cannot be disputed imo. If he does this, successfully impedes the progress of Lyon attacker he concedes an idfk to Lyon.
However the same action, and careful to ensure contact results (should result) in him winning a direct free kick, despite him carrying out the action described in impeding progress of opponent without contact??
Now, for me, if you take without contact out of the heading and then look at the description you almost have a perfect description of Laportes action...