[Law] would you give the mark ?

C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
from SA referees, a player has a juggle as he catches a kick, and WB awards the mark.

SA Refs suggest it wasn't a 'clean catch' so he was wrong - what do we think?


I'd give it.

(leaving aside the Tuilagi obstruction for a moment)

SA refs view : http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830939/
 
Last edited:
R

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
Allow jumping (and you need to), then allow leeway for juggling too.
 
Dickie E

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,143
Post Likes
2,158
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Rushforth said:
Allow jumping (and you need to), then allow leeway for juggling too.
Click to expand...

This was not a clean catch so disallow. Not sure of relevance of jumping comment.
 
R

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
Dickie E said:
Not sure of relevance of jumping comment.
Click to expand...

Traditionally, a mark was called by a player marking (with boot) on the ground at the same time as calling for it. That has changed since the professional era began some 20 years ago. Since then we've had new interpretations for a number of things, the vast majority of which reward skills shown by the player rather than jobworthy interpretations by the referee. In this particular case - not uncommonly - the ball was caught with the FB turning his body away from the ref's viewing angle.
 
P

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Rushforth said:
Traditionally, a mark was called by a player marking (with boot) on the ground at the same time as calling for it. That has changed since the professional era began some 20 years ago. Since then we've had new interpretations for a number of things, the vast majority of which reward skills shown by the player rather than jobworthy interpretations by the referee. In this particular case - not uncommonly - the ball was caught with the FB turning his body away from the ref's viewing angle.
Click to expand...

It's not a clean catch so not a mark. The law has been re-written to remove the need to "mark" the ground. They did not remove the requirement for there to be a clean catch. Why do you think that is?
 
Dixie

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Law 18 definition:

[LAWS]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”. A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out.[/LAWS]

The law has changed since the requirement to have one foot on the ground - it's not just an interpretation change. I don't have the old text available, but from recollection it used to say clean catch even back in the day. It is used only once in the law book (here), and is not further defined. I'm not aware of any suggestion that a catch after even the slightest juggle would constitute a clean catch.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
For me, many catches have an element of juggle. Do we really want to go down that route...
A clean catch could mean : without anyone else getting a hand on it
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Up to 1959 there was no mention of a "clean catch" - however the term "fair catch" was used for what we now call a Mark. By 1974 the clean catch had become a requirement. I don't have any law books between those two dates.

I am not aware of any formal definition of a clean catch,but IMHO the catch in the clip was not a clean one. It was pretty obvious that it bounced up in the air again after the first touch. Whether that means WB is working from a more relaxed definition, or that he did not see the bounce, I cannot say.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
In the Laws, direct means without bouncing, doesn't it
 
T

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
I take "direct" to mean without touching anyone or anything first; eg a Mark cannot be given if the ball is touched in flight, because it's not a direct kick.
 
SimonSmith

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,374
Post Likes
1,472
crossref said:
For me, many catches have an element of juggle. Do we really want to go down that route...
A clean catch could mean : without anyone else getting a hand on it
Click to expand...

No, that's what 'direct' means
 
T

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,004
Post Likes
261
When did players start giving the 'Free Kick' arm signal? We all know it means nothing when given by a player:shrug:
 
menace

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
tim White said:
When did players start giving the 'Free Kick' arm signal? We all know it means nothing when given by a player:shrug:
Click to expand...

I'd say at about the same time crowds got noisy and the ref couldn't/ didn't hear the 'mark' called? It probably happened a few times on telly and now every player does it.
 
D

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
SA Refs are right IMO. I have always understood that 'clean catch' means no fumble or juggle (amongst other things).

Barnes may well have just missed the juggle. Once he blows his whistle he can hardly take advice from the AR and "unblow it".
 
Ian_Cook

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Taff said:
That's what "Direct" means surely?
Click to expand...


[LAWS]The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the
same time shout “Mark”.[/LAWS]

"clean catch" means a catch taken without juggling or fumbling.

"direct" means without touching the ground or another player (it can touch the goalposts though)
 
C

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
Do you have a reference for that?

As I posted earlier clean in cricket means without touching the ground but possibly with juggling.
We know early law makers read the cricket laws as they refer to a cricket catch in the knock on law.

Camquin
 
Ian_Cook

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Camquin said:
Do you have a reference for that?

As I posted earlier clean in cricket means without touching the ground but possibly with juggling.
We know early law makers read the cricket laws as they refer to a cricket catch in the knock on law.

Camquin
Click to expand...

No, I don't have a reference for that, though "direct" is well understood from the touch Law Definitions

[LAWS]‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch without
landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee.[/LAWS]

So if "direct" also means the same thing in the Mark Law, what does "clean" mean? Why use the word "clean"?

In my playing and refereeing days, you had to have both feed planted to take a Mark and if you juggled the ball, no mark would be awarded. By 1996, that changed to one foot

LAW 16. FAIR-CATCH
(a) A player makes a fair-catch when in his twenty-two meters area or in his Ingoal
he, having at least one foot on the ground, cleanly catches the ball direct
from a kick by one of his opponents and, at the same time, he exclaims
"Mark!"
(b) A free kick is awarded for a fair-catch.
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
For me a clean catch has always meant the ball should be caught securely at the first attempt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top