Making a mark

[Davet]

So - rather than "play on", the correct response as we have already established, you will award a scrum against them.

And this is equity?

If you called play on they would have possession from the catch, but rather than than let that happen you blow (for safety as we established), and award a scrum against them - giving possession to the opposition inside the 22.

Is this equity?


Oh - and how does he get an uncontested catch? Law says that player calling a mark cannot be tackled AFTER you have blown the whistle. Until you blow he can be tackled. Which is why when a mark looks likely you have your whistle in, or very close to, your mouth; because you don't want to delay blowing, now do you?

 

[crossref]

But if you award the scrum not the mark who are you giving the put in to?

there was no infringement
- you blew your whistle for a combination of safety / common-sense / uncommon event (as above)
- the catcher gets the scrum cos he was in legally possession when you stopped the game

You wouldn't have blown before he caught it -- it's not an offence to shout to early, and you will be hoping to play on.
You blow after he caught it, after everyone stopped.

Sequence
- he shouts
- he catches it
- everyone stops
- blow the whistle for the reasons above
explain
- guys, you all stopped!
- time off.
- catcher? now, see, that wasn't a mark beacuse..
- attackers? now, listen, there was no mark, and no whistle, so why'dya stop? play to the whistle you fools, I bet you've heard that every game since you were eleven!
- OK everyone clear?

Right , I blew my whistle simply because you all stopped, red in possession, scrum red.

 

[Davet]

OK - so you award the scrum to the catcher's team.

You stop the game, have a chat, award a scrum, they put in, win (generally) the ball, pass to 10 who either runs with it or kicks it, probably into touch.

in what way is the game now further advanced than if they had taken the mark, and either tapped and gone, or kicked?

By awarding the scrum what have we gained that we could not have done by simply awarding the Mark, as all 30 players expected, and then having our chat at the next natural downtime?

 

[OB..]

Perhaps he was thinking of the NFL where you signal a fair catch by waving your arm - which must necessarily precede the catch.

 

[crossref]

OK - so you award the scrum to the catcher's team.

You stop the game, have a chat, award a scrum, they put in, win (generally) the ball, pass to 10 who either runs with it or kicks it, probably into touch.

in what way is the game now further advanced than if they had taken the mark, and either tapped and gone, or kicked?

By awarding the scrum what have we gained that we could not have done by simply awarding the Mark, as all 30 players expected, and then having our chat at the next natural downtime?

true, but if you are going to award the mark then you have to award it the moment he catches it.
the scenario here was that you didn't do that, but attempted to play on, but that didn't work as everyone stoppped.

if you shout play on, or just wait and see what happens then too late - you didn't award the mark.
but now you've blown your whistle anyway. don't change your mind. Scrum.

 

[Davet]

You haven't blown a whistle.

Everybody stops.

You blow the whistle and award the mark everyone is expecting.

Why is it "too late"?

 

[Taff]

An uncontested catch?

I see your point, but as the opposition should be playing to the whistle its a tactic that shouldn't work.

.... You stop the game, have a chat, award a scrum, they put in, win (generally) the ball, pass to 10 who either runs with it or kicks it, probably into touch. in what way is the game now further advanced than if they had taken the mark, and either tapped and gone, or kicked?

The game is further advanced as you now have 30 players who know how to make a perfect mark, and who know that if they don't satisfy the set conditions they don't get one.

You haven't blown a whistle. Everybody stops. You blow the whistle and award the mark everyone is expecting. Why is it "too late"?

Sorry to harp on about it, but what are we discussing "awarding the mark"? There are conditions the ball catcher has to comply with to be given a mark. He needs to comply with all of them - admittedly he got most of them but he he didn't get all of them, so he doesn't get a mark. If he was just outside the 22 and called for a mark as he was catching the ball, would you give it to him? No. Why is this any different?

In an ideal world we could have shouted "Play on - No mark" the ball catcher would have dodged a couple of potential tacklers and all would have been well. As it happened, through inexperience all the players stopped. Whether the game stopped because the ref blew the whistle, or because all the players effectively stopped it themslves is a bit of a moot point - the fact is there was no game being played, and I think you admitted yourself that trying to restart it in that situation doesn't really work. So, that leaves us with a scrum. Who gets the put in? The lawbook says the team that boobed get it as they "were in possession of the ball when play was stopped". But does this sound fair? To me it doesn't, because the non-offending team are now disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Personally I would give the opposition the scrum (it seems the fairest thing to do) but I wouldn't end up in a fist-fight with a ref who gave it to the other side.

 

[Account Deleted]

I'd go for the mark and a word to the player and to both captains so they know why.

 

[Robert Burns]

there was no infringement
- you blew your whistle for a combination of safety / common-sense / uncommon event (as above)
- the catcher gets the scrum cos he was in legally possession when you stopped the game

You wouldn't have blown before he caught it -- it's not an offence to shout to early, and you will be hoping to play on.
You blow after he caught it, after everyone stopped.

Sequence
- he shouts
- he catches it
- everyone stops
- blow the whistle for the reasons above
explain
- guys, you all stopped!
- time off.
- catcher? now, see, that wasn't a mark beacuse..
- attackers? now, listen, there was no mark, and no whistle, so why'dya stop? play to the whistle you fools, I bet you've heard that every game since you were eleven!
- OK everyone clear?

Right , I blew my whistle simply because you all stopped, red in possession, scrum red.

I would just award the mark.

You haven't blown a whistle.

Everybody stops.

You blow the whistle and award the mark everyone is expecting.

Why is it "too late"?

It's not.

I'd go for the mark and a word to the player and to both captains so they know why.

I wouldn't even bother with captains, quick smile and word with catcher, get on with the game.

 

[Davet]

Taff, you may find that demonstrating to all the 15 year olds that you know the law and they don't, and that you about to educate them is not the way to ensure they enjoy the game. Stopping play to award a scrum instead of a free kick seems pointless, stopping it lecture the kids and then to award a scrum - contra to law - to the opposition seems worthy of a true "Blakey".

Its not always adherence to the Law with minute precision that provides the best game, which is what you are there for.

A response along the lines of - "well, you wouldn't give it outside the 22" seems to miss the point.

And just for fun - when exactly is the call of mark to be made? Precisely simultaneous with the catch?

So if the Player catches it then, once he is sure he has it and hasn't dropped it, calls "Mark!", I assume you would disallow it? Really?

Presumably you would restart with a scrum to the opposition after explaining to all why you had no choice in Law but to disallow it?

And you'd think you'd done a good job?

 

[crossref]

Stopping play to award a scrum instead of a free kick seems pointless, stopping it lecture the kids and then to award a scrum - contra to law - to the opposition seems worthy of a true "Blakey".

if you read the scenario properly you'll see that he didn't stop the play - the kids all stopped of their own accord, and the question was then what to do next - try and get them to play on? (possibly dangerous), accept they've stopped and blow the whistle? (OK) then what?

 

[Davet]

Yes - I did read the OP.

All the kids stopped - but play only stops when you blow the whistle.

The fact that all the kids stopped is a prime part of the arguement in favour of simply awarding the Mark and then having a word about how it should really be done at the next convenient downtime.

 

[Taff]

Taff, you may find that demonstrating to all the 15 year olds that you know the law and they don't, and that you about to educate them is not the way to ensure they enjoy the game. Stopping play to award a scrum instead of a free kick seems pointless, stopping it lecture the kids and then to award a scrum - contra to law - to the opposition seems worthy of a true "Blakey".

But I wouldn't have stopped the game Davet, what I would have done is said "No mark - play on" however once the kids all stopped there was no "game" and it's down to one of us to deal with it. The fairest way I feel to deal with it would be to give an opposition scrum. "Safety - Equity - Law" I think the phrase is.

It's not a case of "demonstrating to all the 15 year olds that you know the law and they don't" ... it's a case of applying the law and a pretty basic law at that. Hell, there are only 4 conditions needed for a mark and they're all pretty easy. Matey boy got 3 out 4 right, but he didn't get all 4 right. I won't lose sleep over it, I don't seem to get many U19s calling for a mark anyway.

... And just for fun - when exactly is the call of mark to be made? Precisely simultaneous with the catch?

I don't think the book mentions "simultaneous" but it does say "at the same time". I'm a pretty easy going sort of bloke, but to me "3 seconds" before making the catch is not even close to "the same time".

In the past whenever I've suggested taking an easier line with kids, it seems people are quick enough to point out that I'm too soft on them and at that age we shouldn't cut them a lot of slack and should be applying the law.

 

[Davet]

3 seconds is simply silly - the ball would take less than 1 second to fall from 20 foot up - G = 32 feet per second per second, remember. It would take about 3 seconds to kick a ball the length of the pitch.

So we are talking about a sub-second difference. I know the OP said 3 secs but I suspect that he is wrong, and if his 20 foot up was correct he must be wrong.

you haven't got the option of "Play on" the kids have stopped already, and we have agreed that a play on call under those circumstances is wrong.

So we agree we blow the whistle.

You feel a a call made when the ball was 20 foot up is waaaay too early, and would award (contra to law) a scrum. And as explained a above I really don't see that as equitable. I also don't see the point of awarding a scrum.

The players all clearly expect a mark, that's why they all stopped, they think a mark is fair, why make a rod for your own back by being extra pedantic? Especially why give the ball to the opposition? be a hard sell to the teams and coaches afterwards..., and to anyone else watching

 

[Taff]

3 seconds is simply silly - the ball would take less than 1 second to fall from 20 foot up - G = 32 feet per second per second, remember. ... I know the OP said 3 secs but I suspect that he is wrong, and if his 20 foot up was correct he must be wrong.

No I don't remember TBH - it was a long time ago, but I'll take your word for it. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

whoever said they'd give it to the opposition? I don't see why you would do that.
if the only reason you blew your whistle is safety, then scrum to the team holding the ball when you blew.

 

[Taff]

whoever said they'd give it to the opposition? I don't see why you would do that.

I did.

... if the only reason you blew your whistle is safety, then scrum to the team holding the ball when you blew.

Except we didn't stop for "safety" did we. In fact "we" didn't stop it for anything, so I see it more as a 20.4(d) incident ie

20.4(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

I've just realised that the scrum in this case is different to a scrum awarded for safety. :chin: You learn something every day eh?

 

[Davet]

whoever said they'd give it to the opposition?

Taff did.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

When playing Fullback or wing I used to regulary call a mark outside the 22, always bought me a split second be for chasers realised.

 

[OB..]

Taff, you may find that demonstrating to all the 15 year olds that you know the law and they don't, and that you about to educate them is not the way to ensure they enjoy the game. Stopping play to award a scrum instead of a free kick seems pointless, stopping it lecture the kids and then to award a scrum - contra to law - to the opposition seems worthy of a true "Blakey".

Its not always adherence to the Law with minute precision that provides the best game, which is what you are there for.

A response along the lines of - "well, you wouldn't give it outside the 22" seems to miss the point.

And just for fun - when exactly is the call of mark to be made? Precisely simultaneous with the catch?

So if the Player catches it then, once he is sure he has it and hasn't dropped it, calls "Mark!", I assume you would disallow it? Really?

Presumably you would restart with a scrum to the opposition after explaining to all why you had no choice in Law but to disallow it?

And you'd think you'd done a good job?

It is easy to pick on grey areas, but they rarely help. In this case the call was very clearly much too early.

My gut reaction is to call "Play on!". If they don't then you have to deal with the restart problem, but the person that caused the problem was the Blue 15. It seems reasonable to give the scrum to the opposition.