Calling the Mark

[Phil E]

Leicester v Saracens
Leicester kick ahead in open play, ref calls touched, and makes the touched in flight gesture (sort of like clapping his hands together above his head).
Saracens player inside his 22 catches the ball and calls for the mark, ref give it.

Law says to call a mark the ball must be caught direct from a kick, surely if it's touched it not caught directly from the kick?

Just trying to work out if the ref got this wrong or I am doing it wrong, because I wouldn't have allowed the mark.

 

[Flish]

Is this like a penalty kick that had to be kicked 'directly to touch' to have the line out after time had expired, which I assumed meant without being touched (as per definitions) but I'm sure was clarified that being touched was ok? (I may have imagined this)

 

[Balones]

Leicester v Saracens
Leicester kick ahead in open play, ref calls touched, and makes the touched in flight gesture (sort of like clapping his hands together above his head).
Saracens player inside his 22 catches the ball and calls for the mark, ref give it.

Law says to call a mark the ball must be caught direct from a kick, surely if it's touched it not caught directly from the kick?

Just trying to work out if the ref got this wrong or I am doing it wrong, because I wouldn't have allowed the mark.

I’m sure the referee concerned is going to turn up at Tigers again so why don’t you ask him Phil.

 

[Balones]

Your interpretation of the law as it is written is correct Phil. Unless the referee concerned deems the ´touch´ was the same as a crossbar etc. My feeling is that the referee made an error and question that decision in any debrief or in a report.

 

[tim White]

From Law Definitions - Directly caught: A ball caught without first touching anyone else or the ground