PDA

View Full Version : [Law] MARK - Is this a valid mark ?



CrouchTPEngage
16-01-19, 10:01
Blue kicks a penalty kick which misses the posts and is heading towards the red defender who is standing in his own in-goal area.
Red defender ( shouts "MARK!" ) and tries to catch the ball but it rebounds of his chest and arms and bounces up into the air and forward about 1 metre. He successfully regathers the ball before it hits the ground. Basically its a fumbled catch but the ball has never touched the ground nor another player. He didnt intentionally knock the ball forward. He's just not that good at catching.
Do you award the mark ?

Has there been a law-wording change around this area recently ?

crossref
16-01-19, 10:01
. means of stopping play within a player’s own 22 by directly catching an opponent’s kick.



I would give it

Dickie E
16-01-19, 11:01
even if he fumbles it forwad, hits goal post & then regathers, looks OK

A player may claim a mark even if the ball hits a goal post or crossbar before being caught.

CrouchTPEngage
16-01-19, 11:01
OK reason I asked is several refs think that it has to be a "clean catch" and that this phrase used to be in the law wording.
i.e. he cannot fumble it.
I've seen a video of a game where such a mark was denied as not a "clean catch" too. I need to find that video reference for you all.
Although I notice the new law book doesnt qualify the nature of the "catch". Hence I wonder if there has been an intended change.

OB..
16-01-19, 11:01
201718 Definition The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent's kick
201817.1 (b) Catch a ball that has reached the plane of the 22-metre line directly from an opponent’s kick before it touches the ground or another player
The law appears to have changed so that the referee no longer needs to decide if it was a "clean" catch.

The bit about touching a post first was in the 2017 law as well, where it clearly meant that touching a post did not make the catch indirect.

Taff
16-01-19, 11:01
OK reason I asked is several refs think that it has to be a "clean catch" and that this phrase used to be in the law wording. i.e. he cannot fumble it.
I must admit, that's what I thought too. My understanding was that a fumble wasn't a "clean catch" and meant we couldn't give a Mark.

CrouchTPEngage
16-01-19, 12:01
Thanks OB. So that does it for me. And I guess its helpful to no longer have to judge what is a "clean" from an "unclean" catch.
Just a catch from now on and I will give you a mark.

Taff
16-01-19, 16:01
Thanks OB. So that does it for me. And I guess its helpful to no longer have to judge what is a "clean" from an "unclean" catch. Just a catch from now on and I will give you a mark.
Sorry to be picky, but aren't we just back to the new lawbook / 2017 lawbook problem again?

Ie the 2017 lawbook said it had to be a "clean catch" but the new "simplified" 2018 lawbook just says it must be a "catch" but at the same time we are told that there are no law changes. :sad:

crossref
16-01-19, 16:01
We can't keep harking back to the Law Book before last

It's 2019 .. .ref to the 2019 Laws

didds
16-01-19, 16:01
is there a link to the 2019 laws?

didds

crossref
16-01-19, 17:01
http://laws.worldrugby.org

didds
16-01-19, 17:01
that's there all the time.

That IS an official 2019 release then? as opposed to being the 208 version available during 2019? WR have said this is superceding all previous editions (or some syuff about maybe just improving on the 1923 law book or whatever...)

didds

crossref
16-01-19, 17:01
Yes if you follow the download link and download the pdf you will find that you have the 2019 Law Book

The online pages have also been updated where appropriate.

There aren't many changes from 2018 to 2019 .. tjere is a thread in the Laws forum that lists them (do keep up , didds!) :)

Taff
16-01-19, 21:01
Yes if you follow the download link and download the pdf you will find that you have the 2019 Law Book. The online pages have also been updated where appropriate.
So, if it's meant to be a change why isn't it marked as a change?

crossref
16-01-19, 21:01
So, if it's meant to be a change why isn't it marked as a change?

They have marked the changes from 2018 to 2019

(well most of them, see the thread, a couple of corrections were unmarked)

The Law on Mark is unchanged from 2018 to 2019

Taff
16-01-19, 23:01
They have marked the changes from 2018 to 2019 The Law on Mark is unchanged from 2018 to 2019
And we know there was no change from 2017 to 2018, so it should still be a "clean catch". :chin:

crossref
16-01-19, 23:01
It's 2019, taff, we have to finally put the 2017 Law Book behind us now.. what does it matter what it said?

They made a couple of corrections to the 2018 book and published the 2019 Laws ..that has to be the end of it all..

In 2019 we must all ref to the 2019 Law Book .. anything else is madness

leaguerefaus
17-01-19, 01:01
even if he fumbles it forwad, hits goal post & then regathers, looks OK

A player may claim a mark even if the ball hits a goal post or crossbar before being caught.

Almost certain this part of the law means the ball can be kicked, hit a post, and then caught for a mark. It's not meant to allow a knock forward to be claimed as a mark.

Dickie E
17-01-19, 01:01
Almost certain this part of the law means the ball can be kicked, hit a post, and then caught for a mark. It's not meant to allow a knock forward to be claimed as a mark.

well, its not a knock on cos ball hasn't hit ground or another player. So it's just a fumble (aka an unclean catch).

leaguerefaus
17-01-19, 06:01
well, its not a knock on cos ball hasn't hit ground or another player. So it's just a fumble (aka an unclean catch).

Interesting - I didn't realise in union that the posts don't count for the purpose of ruling a knock-on.

didds
17-01-19, 09:01
There aren't many changes from 2018 to 2019 .. tjere is a thread in the Laws forum that lists them (do keep up , didds!) :)


cheers for that CR - as for keeping up why do you think I am a member here? ;-)

Being semi serious I get mkore sense (!!!) from this one site than a myriad of NGB, WR and meejah sites - all power to you guys elbows.

didds

Decorily
17-01-19, 10:01
In the OP the player was effectively in possession of the ball and presumably tackleable for the second that the ball was not in his hands. (Between losing it forward and regathering it)
If he is in possession then I would say he has made a clean catch and therefore award the FK.

CrouchTPEngage
17-01-19, 10:01
well, its not a knock on cos ball hasn't hit ground or another player. So it's just a fumble (aka an unclean catch).

Hmm... We could be back to the interpretation of the Boolean logic in this definition
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

One could parse that many ways.
1) When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,
OR when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm,
OR [ when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, AND the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. ]

or...

2) [ When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,
OR when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm,
OR when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, ]
AND
[ the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. ]

I have seen both interpretations but (2) is the one I use.

Marc Wakeham
17-01-19, 10:01
201718 Definition The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent's kick
201817.1 (b) Catch a ball that has reached the plane of the 22-metre line directly from an opponent’s kick before it touches the ground or another player
The law appears to have changed so that the referee no longer needs to decide if it was a "clean" catch.

The bit about touching a post first was in the 2017 law as well, where it clearly meant that touching a post did not make the catch indirect.


That bit is interesting. In 2018 there was no reference to the ball reaching the plane. of the 22.

With regard to the ball going from the "catcher" onto a post and back, I would say that that nulifies the catch and it becomes a Knock on. Would he have regatherd had it not hit the post? I have not thought about this before and will chat in Society mut that is my initial thought.

crossref
17-01-19, 11:01
Here's Law 17 from the Law Book (the current Law Book, FFS, the 2019 Law Book! )


17 Mark
PRINCIPLE
A means of stopping play within a player’s own 22 by directly catching an opponent’s kick.

CLAIMING A MARK

To claim a mark, a player must:

Have at least one foot on or behind their own 22-metre line when catching the ball or when landing having caught it in the air; and
Catch a ball that has reached the plane of the 22-metre line directly from an opponent’s kick before it touches the ground or another player; and

Simultaneously call “mark”.

A player may claim a mark even if the ball hits a goal post or crossbar before being caught.

When a mark is called correctly, the referee immediately stops the game and awards a free-kick to the team in possession.
A mark may not be claimed from a kick-off or a restart kick after a score.

1 - The plane is still mentioned and important
2 - No need for the catch to be 'clean' (whatever that used to mean, back in the day)
3 - Anyone spot the error in the Law? Clue1 : it's in the very first sentence of Law 17, and contradiscted in the last sentence

Place of the mark Location of free-kick
Within the 22 At the place of the mark but at least five metres from the goal line, in line with the place of the mark.
Within the in-goal On the five-metre line in line with the place of the mark.

Phil E
17-01-19, 11:01
I am not convinced that a bobbled catch can now claim a Mark, but have asked the question of laws@RFU.com
Let's see what they say in reply?

Taff
17-01-19, 11:01
... With regard to the ball going from the "catcher" onto a post and back, I would say that that nulifies the catch and it becomes a Knock on. Would he have regatherd had it not hit the post?
I think the reference to the posts means if the ball rebounds off the post and the catcher claims a mark, he can still have it.

Dickie E
17-01-19, 11:01
I am not convinced that a bobbled catch can now claim a Mark, but have asked the question of laws@RFU.com
Let's see what they say in reply?

if they come back and say the bobbled catch is not a mark, then the wording of the whole of the 2019 lawbook will be in doubt.

didds
17-01-19, 12:01
if they come back and say the bobbled catch is not a mark, then the wording of the whole of the 2019 lawbook will be in doubt.

Go to jail.
Do not collect £200

Phil E
17-01-19, 13:01
if they come back and say the bobbled catch is not a mark, then the wording of the whole of the 2019 lawbook will be in doubt.

It could be the end of civilisation as we know it!

crossref
17-01-19, 15:01
if they come back and say the bobbled catch is not a mark, then the wording of the whole of the 2019 lawbook will be in doubt.

that or laws@rfu.com :)

Marc Wakeham
17-01-19, 16:01
if they come back and say the bobbled catch is not a mark, then the wording of the whole of the 2019 lawbook will be in doubt.

I'm not doubtig a mark is possible if the ball comes off the posts and is either caught cleanly or bobbled (although bobbled being "ok" may be poor wording.) . I susspect if the ball bobbls into a post after the initial stage of the catch means a Knock on has taken place. Just as it would if it "bobbled " into another player.

Pinky
17-01-19, 17:01
I'm not doubtig a mark is possible if the ball comes off the posts and is either caught cleanly or bobbled (although bobbled being "ok" may be poor wording.) . I susspect if the ball bobbls into a post after the initial stage of the catch means a Knock on has taken place. Just as it would if it "bobbled " into another player.

But you might bobble it backwards into a post?

crossref
17-01-19, 18:01
how many balls can bobble on a post tip?

OB..
17-01-19, 18:01
I'm not doubtig a mark is possible if the ball comes off the posts and is either caught cleanly or bobbled (although bobbled being "ok" may be poor wording.) . I susspect if the ball bobbls into a post after the initial stage of the catch means a Knock on has taken place. Just as it would if it "bobbled " into another player.
Is there any justification for treating a post as another player or the ground?

Marc Wakeham
17-01-19, 20:01
I think there is case to do so.

The player has fumbled the bal. Question would he have caught it but for it bouncing back off the post?

crossref
17-01-19, 20:01
I'd say the posts are part of the game -- when a PK hits a posts and bounces back we don't award a 22m DO on the grounds that is what would have happened if it hadn't hit the post.

a bobble off the posts -- play on with a smile, give you that one, don't do it again !

reasons not to blow the whistle etc

L'irlandais
17-01-19, 20:01
how many balls can bobble on a post tip?Or angels on a pinhead?

21.16
If the ball or ball-carrier touches a corner flag or corner flag post without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues unless the ball is grounded against the post..
What if the ball bobbles back off the corner flat post? Still okay for calling a Mark! ?

Dickie E
17-01-19, 20:01
Or angels on a pinhead?

21.16
If the ball or ball-carrier touches a corner flag or corner flag post without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues unless the ball is grounded against the post..
What if the ball bobbles back off the corner flat post? Still okay for calling a Mark! ?

Funny you should ask that, happened to me just the other ....

Only joking :)

Decorily
17-01-19, 21:01
Or angels on a pinhead?

21.16
If the ball or ball-carrier touches a corner flag or corner flag post without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues unless the ball is grounded against the post..
What if the ball bobbles back off the corner flat post? Still okay for calling a Mark! ?

Well if it would be good enough to award a try from then I would also award the mark!

Decorily
17-01-19, 23:01
Or angels on a pinhead?

21.16
If the ball or ball-carrier touches a corner flag or corner flag post without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues unless the ball is grounded against the post..
What if the ball bobbles back off the corner flat post? Still okay for calling a Mark! ?

Well if it would be good enough to award a try from then I would also award the mark!

Edit. Oops...

crossref
17-01-19, 23:01
If the ball hits the cross bar , of course, it's dead (6.9.f)
:pepper:

Dickie E
17-01-19, 23:01
It's 2019, taff, we have to finally put the 2017 Law Book behind us now..

I don't think we can do that.

If a ball is caught directly from
a. a kick off, or
b. a penalty kick
and a resulting unsuccesful maul occurs, 2019 suggests that the scrum feed would go to the catching team in both cases. Is that how we would ref it?

Dickie E
17-01-19, 23:01
If the ball hits the cross bar , of course, it's dead (6.9.f)
:pepper:

I'll remember that next a penalty shot at goal hits the x-bar before going over :)

Marc Wakeham
18-01-19, 09:01
But you might bobble it backwards into a post?

That would not be a knock on then would it!

ctrainor
18-01-19, 21:01
Can't believe the number of players I come across who don't understand that they have to call for the mark simultaneously when catching, or bobbling the ball.

Decorily
18-01-19, 22:01
Can't believe the number of players I come across who don't understand that they have to call for the mark simultaneously when catching, or bobbling the ball.

If they don't call for it and signal with a bent arm do you still award it?

ctrainor
19-01-19, 00:01
No. There's never enough crowd noise in my games for me not to here a mark being called.
Catching a ball and then bending an arm is not simultaneous.
I've seen them do it when their teammates shout at them to call a mark.
I say play on

Decorily
19-01-19, 00:01
No. There's never enough crowd noise in my games for me not to here a mark being called.
Catching a ball and then bending an arm is not simultaneous.
I've seen them do it when their teammates shout at them to call a mark.
I say play on

No empathy there then!!

crossref
19-01-19, 00:01
No. There's never enough crowd noise in my games for me not to here a mark being called.
Catching a ball and then bending an arm is not simultaneous.
I've seen them do it when their teammates shout at them to call a mark.
I say play on

For me , if they catch the ball and claim a mark .. it's a mark .
Not sure why you would disallow it ?

leaguerefaus
19-01-19, 01:01
Disallowing a mark because the call / signal is slightly later than 'simultaneous' reeks of 'gotcha' refereeing, particularly in grass roots games, and particularly if there's no pressure around the catcher.

ctrainor
19-01-19, 10:01
Sorry guys, that doesn't sound right. I'm not that harsh honest.
I'm talking about a "significant" time delay which is clearly an afterthought when told by colleagues
I also get mark called when the ball is meters away in the air. What about that?

crossref
19-01-19, 10:01
Sorry guys, that doesn't sound right. I'm not that harsh honest.
I'm talking about a "significant" time delay which is clearly an afterthought when told by colleagues
I also get mark called when the ball is meters away in the air. What about that?

As long as he then catches it.. I'd give it

tim White
19-01-19, 10:01
The bent arm signal is nothing to do with the player (it is for the ref to signify) -they are trying to prompt the ref, or the opposition.

Give a positive whistle/signal -or NO, PLAY ON! according to your judgement.

I think you will find most players know what the obligations are for a valid'Mark' -their opponents certainly do.

crossref
19-01-19, 12:01
The bent arm is useful for players in stadium rugby where the ref may not be able to hear the shout over the noise

It's also useful in grass roots rugby where the ref might be, ahem, some distance away and his hearing not as sharp as it once was.

Decorily
20-01-19, 13:01
It's also useful in grass roots rugby where the ref might be, ahem, some distance away and his hearing not as sharp as it once was.

Yes. ..but the bent arm isn't much good if the Refs eyesight isn't what it used to be either!!!!!!!!!!

Phil E
22-01-19, 18:01
I am not convinced that a bobbled catch can now claim a Mark, but have asked the question of laws@RFU.com
Let's see what they say in reply?

So I got a reply from laws@rfu.com and will now referee accordingly.

Question

The phrase "Clean Catch" has been removed from the 2018 and 2019 law books in Law 17.
Does this mean that a bobbled catch can now claim a Mark, as long as it is caught without touching the floor or another player?

Answer

As you indicate the law books have been simplified and content reduced, but the substance of the laws have not changed. However that does leave a few challenges around interpretation.

For the question you pose, where a player juggles the ball as they catch it. Provided the player retains control and possession of the ball, as you describe then this is fine.

crossref
22-01-19, 18:01
It's a lovely Orwellian answer , bobbling is ok , bobbling has always been ok

Phil , are you going to check all the other changes with RFU Laws ? That will be fun :)

Marc Wakeham
23-01-19, 09:01
So I got a reply from laws@rfu.com and will now referee accordingly.

Question
The phrase "Clean Catch" has been removed from the 2018 and 2019 law books in Law 17.
Does this mean that a bobbled catch can now claim a Mark, as long as it is caught without touching the floor or another player?





Answer
As you indicate the law books have been simplified and content reduced, but the substance of the laws have not changed. However that does leave a few challenges around interpretation.

For the question you pose, where a player juggles the ball as they catch it. Provided the player retains control and possession of the ball, as you describe then this is fine.






Thank you Phil.
As an aside, that is an interesting bit in bold!