[Law] Knock-on after mark

[Dixie]

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.

Very true. But by declining to blow the whistle to award the mark, the referee may feel he is playing advantage. Obviously, he would only even consider this when the Mark has been called by a player who is in absolutely no danger of getting clattered, and who indeed has space into which to run to try to realise said advantage.

 

[OB..]

Very true. But by declining to blow the whistle to award the mark, the referee may feel he is playing advantage. Obviously, he would only even consider this when the Mark has been called by a player who is in absolutely no danger of getting clattered, and who indeed has space into which to run to try to realise said advantage.

If the player calls Mark correctly, the referee must honour his call. The referee can only play on if he decides the Mark was not valid.

 

[crossref]

Very true. But by declining to blow the whistle to award the mark, the referee may feel he is playing advantage. Obviously, he would only even consider this when the Mark has been called by a player who is in absolutely no danger of getting clattered, and who indeed has space into which to run to try to realise said advantage.

I disagree, he must call mark, and if he wishes the player can quick-tap his kick, and go.

 

[Dixie]

If the player calls Mark correctly, the referee must honour his call. The referee can only play on if he decides the Mark was not valid.

I disagree, he must call mark, and if he wishes the player can quick-tap his kick, and go.

I think both these are accurate statements, but both seem to be based on law 18.1:

[LAWS]18.1 AFTER A MARK
The referee immediately blows the whistle and awards a kick to the player who made the mark.[/LAWS]

In considering whether advantage might possible be allowable, we'd have to see that law overridden. The provision that potentially overrides it is Law 8, the definition of which says:

[LAWS]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/LAWS] Law 8.3 highlights specifically the provisions that are NOT capable of being overridden by the advantage law, and Law 18 is not one of them. I am trying to appreciate why, then, responsible referees are adamant that the referee MUST award the mark in accordance with 18.1. Is it because there is no offence from which to gain an advantage? Or is it something else?

 

[Taff]

... 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?

Good point. I think I would treat it the same as a conversion - once the kicker makes a move to kick the ball, the opposition are free to make their move.

 

[OB..]

I think both these are accurate statements, but both seem to be based on law 18.1:

[LAWS]18.1 AFTER A MARK
The referee immediately blows the whistle and awards a kick to the player who made the mark.[/LAWS]

In considering whether advantage might possible be allowable, we'd have to see that law overridden. The provision that potentially overrides it is Law 8, the definition of which says:

[LAWS]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/LAWS] Law 8.3 highlights specifically the provisions that are NOT capable of being overridden by the advantage law, and Law 18 is not one of them. I am trying to appreciate why, then, responsible referees are adamant that the referee MUST award the mark in accordance with 18.1. Is it because there is no offence from which to gain an advantage? Or is it something else?

The player has made a deliberate choice. Why would the referee be entitled to ignore that choice? Whose game is it?

Although 8.1 does not specifically say so, it is clear that it only refers to situations where the opponents have committed an offence:-[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.[/FONT][/LAWS]

This is another case of trying to read too much into the wording of the laws.

 

[Pegleg]

Very true. But by declining to blow the whistle to award the mark, the referee may feel he is playing advantage. Obviously, he would only even consider this when the Mark has been called by a player who is in absolutely no danger of getting clattered, and who indeed has space into which to run to try to realise said advantage.

And he would be wrong to do so.

 

[Rushforth]

I hope it is not a mistake I will make again, but the one and only time a mark was called so far in any of my matches I missed it. Perhaps because the U15 who caught the ball fairly in his own 22 had no actual sound coming out of his mouth, male teenagers being known to have that problem at times. Players from both sides slowed down, but none of the players from the kicking side were very close to him, and the catcher's side was already out of sight in terms of scoreline.

The catcher realised I had not whistled before other players did, and went on to score from his own 22. In retrospect I should have whistled when he started running and others were acting befuddled, of course.

Fully agreed that any referee should whistle as soon as the mark is made; advantage is not an option.

 

[Taff]

... because the U15 who caught the ball fairly in his own 22 .... Players from both sides slowed down, but none of the players from the kicking side were very close to him ....

If he wasn't under pressure, why the hell did he call for a Mark?

I hope it is not a mistake I will make again, but the one and only time a mark was called so far in any of my matches I missed it. Perhaps because the U15 who caught the ball fairly in his own 22 had no actual sound coming out of his mouth.

If he didn't call for the Mark, then he's not entitled to one. It's one of the 5 or 6 essentials for a Mark.

 

[Rushforth]

If he wasn't under pressure, why the hell did he call for a Mark?

No idea, this was the main reason I didn't realise he had, initially.

If he didn't call for the Mark, then he's not entitled to one. It's one of the 5 or 6 essentials for a Mark.

He did. It just wasn't audible (edit: at range). There were bodies running around between me and the catcher, who apparently also did the little arm indication.

Anyway, I'm not blaming myself, just offering "if everybody nearby slows down maybe something else was going on".

 

[didds]

I hope it is not a mistake I will make again, but the one and only time a mark was called so far in any of my matches I missed it. Perhaps because the U15 who caught the ball fairly in his own 22 had no actual sound coming out of his mouth, .... . In retrospect I should have whistled when he started running and others were acting befuddled, of course.

why? It wasn't a mark. He didn;t call it.

Law 18 Definitions
To make a mark, a player must be on or behind that player’s 22-metre line. A player with one foot on the 22-metre line or behind it is considered to be ‘in the 22’. The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark”.

Just because everybody else stops doesn't mean you should acquiesce to their confusion.

If the bloke dropped the ball backwards but everybody stopped because they thought it was a knock-on would you blow for a knock-on?

didds

 

[Rushforth]

why? It wasn't a mark. He didn;t call it.

I thought I had explained "why".

The kid tried to call it. I didn't hear it. I realise that as a referee I am the sole judge of fact, but other players from both sides did hear it, or had better views of him trying to.

In retrospect, I made a mistake, a very minor one. I could have corrected myself is all.

 

[Taff]

.... He did. It just wasn't audible (edit: at range). There were bodies running around between me and the catcher, who apparently also did the little arm indication. Anyway, I'm not blaming myself, just offering "if everybody nearby slows down maybe something else was going on".

Ah. It's getting clearer now. Thanks.

 

[Dickie E]

I thought I had explained "why".

The kid tried to call it. I didn't hear it. I realise that as a referee I am the sole judge of fact, but other players from both sides did hear it, or had better views of him trying to.

In retrospect, I made a mistake, a very minor one. I could have corrected myself is all.

If I see a kick into the 22 with a defender underneath it I'll start thinking "there may be a mark here".

If I don't hear the call but others react as though he did make the call I'll normally give the mark. The optics of a player running the length of the field while everyone else is standing around with the WTF? look on their faces is not good.

If the catcher then gives me "but sir I didn't call mark" I'll go with "sorry, son, I thought you did". He'll still be in good shape with a FK to take.

 

[didds]

I thought I had explained "why".

The kid tried to call it. I didn't hear it.

??

Apologies - when you said in your post #28

Perhaps because the U15 who caught the ball fairly in his own 22 had no actual sound coming out of his mouth

i read that to mean that ... err... no actual sound came out of his mouth i.e. he didn't call mark.

I'm still struggling how he called mark if no actual sound came out of his mouth, but wonders never cease.

In space nobody can hear you scream...

didds

 

[didds]

If the catcher then gives me "but sir I didn't call mark" I'll go with "sorry, son, I thought you did". He'll still be in good shape with a FK to take.

He wont; of course be thinking about the 75m run in unopposed down the tramlines that he could see. ;-)

didds