[Law] Knock-on after mark

[Gwladok5]

I wasn't paying much attention to the Edinburgh v Glasgow match today (& sound was off) but I just caught a bit where a player made a mark (correctly) then subsequently lost the ball forward. The referee then awarded a scrum. Was that correct? I thought as soon as a mark is made, the game is stopped?

 

[Nigib]

I wasn't paying much attention to the Edinburgh v Glasgow match today (& sound was off) but I just caught a bit where a player made a mark (correctly) then subsequently lost the ball forward. The referee then awarded a scrum. Was that correct? I thought as soon as a mark is made, the game is stopped?

With the sound off it's probably difficult to tell. Was the ball going forward immediate ie as part of the act of catching? Without the video, I would guess that although the ball was caught, he then spilled if forward before the ref whistled. Hence scrum. Game only stops on the whistle.

 

[Taff]

I suppose it's up the Ref to decide whether the Mark was correct or not.

Don't forget that one of the conditions for a Mark is that the catcher makes a "clean catch". If the player calling for the mark lost it forward, perhaps it wasn't as "clean" a catch as he would have liked.

 

[ChrisR]

Game only stops on the whistle.

The referee's whistle is tell players to stop playing after an event.

If there was a "clean catch" as the mark is called, then the ball is lost forward a mark should have been awarded. I suspect that the referee judged that a clean catch had not been made or the catching player was not within his 22.

 

[Pegleg]

If the ref awarded the mark and then ruled the knock on (after the event) I'd say he was wrong. However, and I'm guessing here,I expect he had not awarded the mark and felt the drop meant that there was no clean catch.

 

[Dixie]

To the main question, we don't know who threw into the scrum. If it was the defending team, it's possible that the Marker was incapacitated and unable to take the kick, resulting in a scrum option.

Game only stops on the whistle.

The referee's whistle is tell players to stop playing after an event.

If there was a "clean catch" as the mark is called, then the ball is lost forward a mark should have been awarded. I suspect that the referee judged that a clean catch had not been made or the catching player was not within his 22.

I disagree. I think Nigib is correct that the game only stops on the whistle. If an attacker clatters the fullback after he has called the Mark but before the ref has awarded it, in my view he is perfectly entitled to do so. If Marauder is correct that the Mark has occurred as an event before the whistle is ever blown to award it, then the attacker should pull out and should be penalised for unsporting actions if he fails (I can't think of any other law that might cover it). To me, that is contrary to the ethos of the game.

This raises an interesting related point: can (should) the ref wait for an advantage to accrue before awarding the mark? If an overly-fearful defender calls Mark when there is no-one within 40m, can the ref decide not to award it? On the one hand, Law 8 implies that advantage can only accrue from an infringement - and calling a mark is not an infringement. That may be a reason why the Mark is not given as an instance when advantage may not apply (law 8.3). Equally, 18.1 requires the Referee immediately to blow his whistle when a Mark is called. On the other hand, per law 8 Advantage takes precedence over most other laws, and there is no indication that law 18 is excluded from this.

 

[crossref]

when a player calls for a mark, it creates a dangerous moment as we have the possibility of the ball carrier believing he has made the ball dead, while an opponent believes it's live, and tackles him unexpectedly.
To avoid anyone being hurt the ref MUST make an immediate call - either to blow the whistle or a very loud shout of Play on.
I don't think there is ever a circumstance where the ref could delay that.

 

[Dickie E]

This raises an interesting related point: can (should) the ref wait for an advantage to accrue before awarding the mark?

As pointed out by another poster on a different thread (Pegleg?) advantage only follows an infringement by the opposition.

 

[didds]

what if...

1) plater makes a mark and it is awarded
2) some time passes
3) the catcher shapes to kick spills the ball forward.

??

If that is a knock on, now replace 2) with

2) immediately


??

didds

 

[OB..]

what if...

1) plater makes a mark and it is awarded
2) some time passes
3) the catcher shapes to kick spills the ball forward.

??

If that is a knock on, now replace 2) with

2) immediately


??

didds

Zeno's paradox:split a finite distance into an infinite number of steps and thereby "prove" something is impossible (Achilles cannot overtake a tortoise, an arrow can never reach its target, etc).

Obviously the referee has to judge if there was a clean catch, which entails holding on to the ball. No different in principle from many other matters of judgement.

 

[Dickie E]

what if...

1) plater makes a mark and it is awarded
2) some time passes
3) the catcher shapes to kick spills the ball forward.

??

If that is a knock on, now replace 2) with

2) immediately


??

didds

No, it is not a knock on in the same way that a player shaping to take a penalty can't knock on and a player shaping to take a restart can't knock on.

 

[Dickie E]

Obviously the referee has to judge if there was a clean catch, which entails holding on to the ball.

One we sometimes see is where the catcher gets clattered 1/2 a nanosecond after he catches the ball and drops the ball because he was tackled. I would award the mark in that case.

 

[Pegleg]

This raises an interesting related point: can (should) the ref wait for an advantage to accrue before awarding the mark? If an overly-fearful defender calls Mark when there is no-one within 40m, can the ref decide not to award it? On the one hand, Law 8 implies that advantage can only accrue from an infringement - and calling a mark is not an infringement. That may be a reason why the Mark is not given as an instance when advantage may not apply (law 8.3). Equally, 18.1 requires the Referee immediately to blow his whistle when a Mark is called. On the other hand, per law 8 Advantage takes precedence over most other laws, and there is no indication that law 18 is excluded from this.

Once the whistle blows there can be no advantage. At an infringement the ref EITHER blows OR plays advantage (subject to advantage being possible in law). You cant' have both.

- - - Updated - - -

One we sometimes see is where the catcher gets clattered 1/2 a nanosecond after he catches the ball and drops the ball because he was tackled. I would award the mark in that case.

Indeed we apply the law fairly and with common sense.

 

[didds]

WRT post Mark and spilling the ball etc.. thanks for the clarification Di9ckie, but.. (seeking further clarity)...

post MARK, the oppo can cgharge the kicker as he starts to approach his kick. This includes AIUI the ability to tackle/hold/knock down the kicker of he doesn't kick it in time. is this another example of a zombie ball? ie to some limited extent play is live but the ball isn't ?

didds

 

[Dickie E]

WRT post Mark and spilling the ball etc.. thanks for the clarification Di9ckie, but.. (seeking further clarity)...

post MARK, the oppo can cgharge the kicker as he starts to approach his kick. This includes AIUI the ability to tackle/hold/knock down the kicker of he doesn't kick it in time. is this another example of a zombie ball? ie to some limited extent play is live but the ball isn't ?

didds

This is interesting.

Red player takes mark cleanly and it is awarded by referee.

He goes back to take the kick and, as he approaches to kick, Blue player legally charges towards him.

Red player is taken by surprise and knocks the ball on.

Restart?

Blue scrum for me unless Blue gains an advantage.

 

[Dickie E]

post MARK, the oppo can cgharge the kicker as he starts to approach his kick.

Out of curiosity, where does it say an opponent can charge a kick associated with a mark?

Law 21 says this:

[LAWS]Definitions
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.[/LAWS]

A mark is hardly a result of an infringement by opponent so is a mark not a free kick???

 

[Dan_A]

18.5 How the kick is taken


The provisions of Law 21 - Free Kicks - apply to a kick awarded after a mark.

 

[didds]

Law 21.8 (e)
Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.

 

[didds]

(I'm now feeling quite chuffed cos I knew something that Dickie didn't

didds

 

[Dickie E]

(I'm now feeling quite chuffed cos I knew something that Dickie didn't

didds

no seegar cos I knew 21.8(e) but missed 18.5.