When is a mark a mark?

[pazza]

It seems just about everyone except for the umpires thought McKernan clearly took a grab in the goal square on Friday night and it also created a 2 goal turnaround.

If we go on Elliott's "mark" from earlier in the season, McKernan's mark has to be paid as one.

 

[Harry Yorkie]

You need to understand that a lot of the laws of the game and everything surrounding AFL were written up by esteemed legal eagle Dennis Denuto -
"It's the vibe of the thing".

 

[hcd199]

It seems just about everyone except for the umpires thought McKernan clearly took a grab in the goal square on Friday night and it also created a 2 goal turnaround.

If we go on Elliott's "mark" from earlier in the season, McKernan's mark has to be paid as one.

Didn't the umpires later come out and say that Elliott's shouldn't have been paid, as he didn't have sufficient control of the ball? I don't think that's a great choice of comparison...

I think you're right that most would call McKernan's a mark, and my take when I first saw it not paid was that the umpire could probably only see from behind McKernan, so had to rely on whether the ball spilled out or not to determine whether it had been taken. The reality is, it's always going to be a subjective question of control when the player doesn't complete the catch - particularly if the umpires aren't in the best position to evaluate it, as I suspect is the case here - and we'll get anomalies like the Elliott decision in Round 3, or the McKernan decision here.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

"Control" is always going to lead some inconsistency. Personally, I think umpires are generally pay too many marks that are not what I regard as controlled.
The McKernan one would be a mark almost every time. He was extraordinarily unlucky not to have that paid.

 

[kickazz]

Umpires are a lot stricter in what counts as a mark when compare to say, the nineties.

It is just another rule interpretation based factor thathas been implemented in an effort to speed the game up at all cost, but has also led to the more messy footy we have in the game now.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

McKernan was simply a stuff up, it was clearly a mark.

 

[Wild Bill]

McKernan was simply a stuff up, it was clearly a mark.

Unless the ump was blind sided and in that case can't guess. Easy with different camera angles and slow mo.

Letting us take it the length of the ground as as poor from the essendon players than the missed mark.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It seems just about everyone except for the umpires thought McKernan clearly took a grab in the goal square on Friday night and it also created a 2 goal turnaround.

If we go on Elliott's "mark" from earlier in the season, McKernan's mark has to be paid as one.

there was some "interesting" calls right across the park on the weekend. Maybe they are trying to crack down on what i like to call channel 7 marks. it will take time for people to adjust.

 

[Boxhead_31]

What was it that they taught me when I was just learning the game?
Oh yes play to the whistle, the umpire is always right and will never change their mind.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Do it like Auskick, pay the mark to anyone who touches the ball before it hits the ground.