MARK - Is this a valid mark ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

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]

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

I would give it

[Dickie E]

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]

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..]

2017

18 Definition The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent's kick

2018

17.1 (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]

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]

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]

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.

[crossref]

We can't keep harking back to the Law Book before last

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

[didds]

is there a link to the 2019 laws?

didds