didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,092
- Post Likes
- 1,809
Making a mark
- Thread starter colesy
- Start date
NO it isn't the same thing at all - you made the call; in that case as i said above you have no choice but to scrum.
In the specific case we are talking about there was NO call
Please - please, READ what I write before coming back on points that have been covered earlier - It's getting very irritating. You put words in my mouth that are the opposite of what I have said.
OB - what has players doing what coaches say got to do with what I said? I simply suggest that many U15 coaches are ignorant of the Law anyway, as opposed to your expectation that they are well versed in it (You say you would expect them to know that the mark must be called at the same time)
What on earth has that got to do with players obeying coaches?
Nothing.
I would accept a scrum at the mark, to the catching side, but see little point in it.
Awarding a scrum to the kickers is in my view simply bad judgement, creating a crisis where none is necessary.
If you are comfortable with that then carry on. I think it is an over the top response designed to let the ref off the hook for his poor management.
I guess we must agree to differ. And since its not going to be an everyday occurance anyway, since most refs WILL correctly manage the issue, then I don't really see it as worth continuing.
But I am disappointed in your supporting such a rigid stance. Safety, Enjoyment, Law - in that order of priority.
What on earth has that got to do with players obeying coaches?
Nothing.
I would accept a scrum at the mark, to the catching side, but see little point in it.
Awarding a scrum to the kickers is in my view simply bad judgement, creating a crisis where none is necessary.
If you are comfortable with that then carry on. I think it is an over the top response designed to let the ref off the hook for his poor management.
I guess we must agree to differ. And since its not going to be an everyday occurance anyway, since most refs WILL correctly manage the issue, then I don't really see it as worth continuing.
But I am disappointed in your supporting such a rigid stance. Safety, Enjoyment, Law - in that order of priority.
Adam
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,489
- Post Likes
- 35
I've had this before. I repeated it very loudly and everyone played on. If you sell the [correct] decision well enough then it will be fine. Hand movements also work wonders.
I've also had a TJ flag for touch when the ball crossed the plane of the touchline. It was then blown back into the playing area and the TJ took a step in-field and caught it.
I said that I hoped both coaches would know the early call was wrong. You replied
You are inferring that the players stopped because the coaches had not taught them properly. Since they do not always follow what the coaches said, you cannot draw any inferences about the coaches from what the players do in a one-off situation.
I don't understand why, nor do I see a crisis.
As I see it Blue 15 made an error. This was followed by a refereeing omission and errors by the players. I do not see why those subsequent errors cancel out the first one. A second knock-on does not cancel out the first. Your decision would give Blue a benefit from that original error.
And yours lets the Blue 15 off the hook for the original error.
I'll agree with that.
I claim my view meets those criteria and has the added benefit of not misleading any players as to what is required by law. You can forget the "disappointed" bit. I am not trying to "appoint" you (is that the opposite of disappoint?)
Because I removed it. It was nice to win it, but I felt it looked as if I was claiming some sort of authority - which I don't.
Managing the law to suit and materiality rather than refereeing as per the law is what has got us into the mess of elite rugby with players flat on the ground and playing the ball rather than being on their feet etc blah blah.
The call for the mark was wrong, play on and the most switched on team benefits. Discuss it at the next breakdown or after the game.
The call for the mark was wrong, play on and the most switched on team benefits. Discuss it at the next breakdown or after the game.
yes, well, the applicable law seems to be law 10
I share Davet's antipathy to giving the ball to the other team, and it seemed to me the catcher took a step forward before he, and everyone else, stopped.
but yes, in Law, I reckon that if the whole reason you blow the whistle is that everyone has stopped, then by definition neither team was moving forward, so -- in both examples -- the attacking team should get the scrum.
- in this scenario of the bad mark, that would be the kickers (I am assuming the catcher was in his 22)
- in the scenario of the touch that never was, I can't remember which half of the pitch we were in
I feel that the Law makers hadn't really considered the 'everyone stops' scenario. It is quite unusual.
ruareftrev91
Referees in England
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 53
- Post Likes
- 0
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 9
I've had this happen to me in a league match. I called "play on. No mark!" At the next stoppage I explained why no mark was awarded. I've also had player A catch the ball and player B call 'mark!'
Now that's teamwork!!
Now that's teamwork!!