Mark - @Clean Catch

[Toby Warren]

The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark”. A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out.

****

During the Ireland Scotland game CJ awarded a mark to Scotland. There was an up and under and the Blue full back leaps to catch the ball at the same time the Green chaser does the same.

They catch the ball simultaneously (and in the subsequent tussle Green win the ball)

The Blue full back called MARK. Which was awarded.

Would you have awarded this (thereby ruling that a clean catch can be made be 2 opposing players at the same time?)

 

[Chogan]

Many members of the aviva crowd were not happy with this call. Having not seen it before I was left pondering the decision.
I believe that if two opponents catch a kicked ball inside the 22 cleanly, one has a right to call mark and the other doesn't. My only issue was if the catch was indeed clean or not.

 

[Taff]

... Would you have awarded this (thereby ruling that a clean catch can be made be 2 opposing players at the same time?

Well 2 opposing players can obviously make a clean catch at the same time ... neither player fumbled it. Its rare, but it's clearly possible.

Good call by the Ref IMO.

 

[irishref]

Catch was clean enough, you're allowed to call the mark with both feet in the air so no issue for me. Correct call.

 

[Toby Warren]

But is a clean catch 'clean' when two people catch it at the same time?

 

[Account Deleted]

I believe that if two opponents catch a kicked ball inside the 22 cleanly, one has a right to call mark and the other doesn't. My only issue was if the catch was indeed clean or not.

Well clearly only one side's player can call a mark. After all the other in not in his own 22.

Does the law prevent a mark being awarded if two players catch the ball? Well I see nothing in law to prevent it if the player does not fumble the ball. But is that the law's intent? I think I'd allow it. But I'm happy to be told otherwise.

 

[irishref]

Well since the law doesn't provide any further explanation of what clean means, let's apply some logic. Defening player complies with everything needed for a mark if there was no pressure from the opponent's chase. He caught the ball, there was no fumble thereof and he called the mark whilst airborne.

Really, I don't see the issue.

 

[Toby Warren]

The issue is the skill is to catch the ball cleanly.

If someone else is holding / catching the ball is that clean, did the defender execute the skill to high enough standard to get the reward?



(I don't know the answer - my gut feel is I wouldn't have awarded it as the defender didn't catch it cleanly but can see the other point of view)

 

[Account Deleted]

(I don't know the answer - my gut feel is I wouldn't have awarded it as the defender didn't catch it cleanly but can see the other point of view)

I feel the same but lean on the other side.

 

[crossref]

I didn't see it, is there a video on-line anywhere?

 

[Taff]

Well clearly only one side's player can call a mark. After all the other in not in his own 22.

I read it the same as you the first time round, but what I think Chogan meant was 2 players from the same team . Eg If two Red players caught the ball simultaneously, the mark could only be given to one. Which one do you give it to?

The issue is the skill is to catch the ball cleanly. If someone else is holding / catching the ball is that clean, did the defender execute the skill to high enough standard to get the reward?

Like ATTR, I think the Blue player showed greater than average skill to catch the ball under that much pressure.

 

[Account Deleted]

I read it the same as you the first time round, but what I think Chogan meant was 2 players from the same team

I'm not sure why you would think that:

I believe that if two opponents catch a kicked ball inside the 22

 

[Chogan]

To clarify.
I did not mean 2 players from the same team. But that is an interesting one to consider.

I stated the belief that

if two opponents catch a kicked ball inside the 22 cleanly, one has a right to call mark and the other doesn't.

I was trying to covey (poorly) that the defender simply has more rights to the ball when he has called 'mark' over the attacker. A clean catch in my book is making the catch without juggling/fumbling the ball.

The confusion at the game was that Kearney ripped the ball a split second after both made the catch. So I think it is reasonable to wonder if the Scottish player had indeed made a clean catch.

 

[OB..]

The confusion at the game was that Kearney ripped the ball a split second after both made the catch. So I think it is reasonable to wonder if the Scottish player had indeed made a clean catch.

Clean catch followed by a steal IMHO.

 

[Taff]

I'm not sure why you would think that:

Partly because his comment didn't make much sense otherwise.

Sorry Chogan. :biggrin:

 

[Camquin]

To be a clean catch nobody must touch the ball between the kick and the catch.

So the ref had to be sure Blue got hands on the ball before Green.
I am not sure I would have been convinced enough to give the mark.

Camquin

 

[Account Deleted]

To be a clean catch nobody must touch the ball between the kick and the catch.

Basis in law?

 

[Camquin]

Form th definition "Mark must be a clean catch direct from an opponent's kick."

Direct usually means nobody else has touched it.

 

[Shelflife]

For me a clean catch would be one where an opponent has no claim on the ball, for me clean means that there is no doubt the player has possession of the ball.

In the game on Sunday, wouldnt have given the mark .

 

[Taff]

For me a clean catch would be one where an opponent has no claim on the ball, for me clean means that there is no doubt the player has possession of the ball.

Mmmm. :chin: To me "clean" just means he didn't fumble it.

As "clean" isn't defined in the lawbook, I suppose it will mean different things to different referees.