Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Sunhawks non-mark

      
  1. #31

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,888
    Thanks (Received)
    158
    Likes (Received)
    1288
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    The new law trials have been incorporated into the 2017 law book (downloadable from the WR website).
    As usual the law trials are highlighted (in grey).

    The new touch trials are highlighted in Law19 (touch and lineout) of the new law book.

    There are no highlighted areas in Law 18 (Mark), or law 22 (in goal).

    The part about "this also applies to the goal line and TIG" never made it into the law book.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  2. #32

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,204
    Thanks (Received)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    444

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    The new law trials have been incorporated into the 2017 law book (downloadable from the WR website).
    As usual the law trials are highlighted (in grey).

    The new touch trials are highlighted in Law19 (touch and lineout) of the new law book.

    There are no highlighted areas in Law 18 (Mark), or law 22 (in goal).

    The part about "this also applies to the goal line and TIG" never made it into the law book.
    As I said in an earlier post, I believe the books were already at the printer when they decided to go with, "this also applies to the goal line and TIG"
    When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
    It's the same when you are stupid.

  3. #33

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,888
    Thanks (Received)
    158
    Likes (Received)
    1288
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    As I said in an earlier post, I believe the books were already at the printer when they decided to go with, "this also applies to the goal line and TIG"
    But they could easily update the online version (they have done it before)...they haven't.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  4. #34

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,204
    Thanks (Received)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    444

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    Yes.
    Thankfully for you guys, all the shit should be sorted by the time the changes are to be implemented in the NH.

    I have already sent off an email to try to get clarification from ARU re the 22 and in particular, last night's game i.e. OP
    Re the bit in bold.
    Currently no change in the Mark or 22m law.
    Therefore, ref in OP made an error.
    Watch this space for update or WR for a clarification
    Last edited by The Fat; 09-03-17 at 11:03.
    When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
    It's the same when you are stupid.

  5. #35
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    108
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    Re the bit in bold.
    Currently no change in the Mark or 22m law.
    Therefore, ref in OP made an error.
    Watch this space for update or WR for a clarification
    I agree on the assessment of a the wrong call.

    It was not an issue of the laws as is the case on the other matter.

  6. #36
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    108
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    But they could easily update the online version (they have done it before)...they haven't.
    Such an update couldn't be done without having a knock on (forgive the pun) effect elsewhere, i.e. 22.9 & 19.5.


    Best to retract the clarification treating elements of it as a nonsense and reissue something that makes sense!

  7. #37

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,888
    Thanks (Received)
    158
    Likes (Received)
    1288
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    Such an update couldn't be done without having a knock on (forgive the pun) effect elsewhere, i.e. 22.9 & 19.5.


    Best to retract the clarification treating elements of it as a nonsense and reissue something that makes sense!
    What I am saying is they could easily have added the bit about goal line etc. The fact they haven't suggests they left it out deliberately?

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  8. #38
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    405
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    47

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    If this thread was about the Mark. One question I always have is that the laws mention the calling of the word "MARK!" clearly. We regularly see players placing their arm in the "free kick" indication as well ( or maybe instead).
    If a player were to comply with all the conditions for a mark, apart from shouting "MARK!", and instead making only the signal with their arm, would you award a mark ?

  9. #39
    Coach/Referee

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    03 May 13
    Posts
    856
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    165

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    If this thread was about the Mark. One question I always have is that the laws mention the calling of the word "MARK!" clearly. We regularly see players placing their arm in the "free kick" indication as well ( or maybe instead).
    If a player were to comply with all the conditions for a mark, apart from shouting "MARK!", and instead making only the signal with their arm, would you award a mark ?
    I certainly would. In fact I awarded one to a player once who neither called nor signalled. He just caught the ball and stood there. As he was about to be heavily tackled (not expecting to be ) I awarded the FK in the interests of safety. He afterwards told me he didn't know he had to call the mark but thought it was automatically awarded! Both teams had a laugh and we got on with the game.
    And no....his name wasn't Mark.

  10. #40
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    401

    Default Re: Sunhawks non-mark

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    If this thread was about the Mark. One question I always have is that the laws mention the calling of the word "MARK!" clearly. We regularly see players placing their arm in the "free kick" indication as well ( or maybe instead).
    If a player were to comply with all the conditions for a mark, apart from shouting "MARK!", and instead making only the signal with their arm, would you award a mark ?
    Depends on the situation and the level. As Decorily says, if there's a safety issue, blow your whistle and if it's kids, I'd award the mark and have a quick word.

    If it's a level where they should know better I doubt I'd award the mark - and if I did blow my whistle (only for safety) I'd restart with a scrum to the team in possession and an explanation.

    If I didn't blow my whistle and thought the catcher was expecting me to, I'd shout "play on"
    Last edited by DocY; 09-03-17 at 16:03.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •