Mark?
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 12, 2017
- 17,048
- 44,562
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Noise of affirmation swayed this decision I think.
- Jul 16, 2015
- 92,595
- 157,753
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Fighting Furies
- Moderator
- #3
At first i thought “nah, that defs wasnt a mark”, but if you look close, it hadnt past the post when he marked it.
docks
Premium Platinum
You have to have control of it before it crosses the line, quite simply he didn’t have time to have control before it crossed the line.
- Banned
- #6
carey pointed out that it was a one touch grab, which means that the point of control was the point he first touched it, when it was clearly obscured by the post therefore not over the line.
He took it one grab and from all angles which were shown, the ball had not gone completely over the line and therefore, it's a mark.
docks
Premium Platinum
If Carey said it it must be true
- Banned
- #9
i guess i should trust you instead?If Carey said it it must be true
docks
Premium Platinum
My opinion doesn’t matter, nor does Carey’s but if it had been the other way around there would be 17 teams complaining. Take off the Richmond goggles, a point every day of the week.
- Banned
- #11
so youre saying that only collingwood fans are complaining now. that puts it into perspective.
He had control from the moment it hit his hands, he never lost control.
docks
Premium Platinum
People can complain all they want, he had control from the clean one grab and if that begins before the ball has crossed the line (whole ball I believe?) Then the letter of the law calls it a mark. It can be on the line and in play.
Rightly or wrongly, I'm of the belief that whatever occurs past the line shouldn't be considered (whether it be held or spilt). The rule talks about controlling the mark before the line. If in that split second he has been deemed as controlling the mark, then we should be paying a LOT more marks in a game - including the Jamie Elliot one down the other end in front of goals.
O Polo?
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,678
- 6,864
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The problem is not whether it was a mark or not, the problem is that the replay footage was inconclusive and you can't possibly overturn the on-field decision based on it.
Have people forgotten this basic concept?
If the ump had paid a mark, then it couldn't have been overturned the other way either. You can have your opinion as to whether or not it was a mark, but it objectively was an indefensible reversal.
Have people forgotten this basic concept?
If the ump had paid a mark, then it couldn't have been overturned the other way either. You can have your opinion as to whether or not it was a mark, but it objectively was an indefensible reversal.
But it was conclusive based on the rules. Because he took it cleanly, the moment it touched his hands, it's considered a mark assuming that the whole ball wasn't over the line.
From the replay, the post (which is part of the goal line) obscures the view of the ball when he first touches it. The next frame/s, it shows Higgins with his arms bent with the ball in his hands, and maybe the whole ball over the line. Therefore the first point of contact was made before the whole ball crossed the line, while it was obscured by the post.
Carey summed it up very well live. This exact same argument can be used for a mark taken on the boundary line.
"14.2 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
(a) For the avoidance of doubt, a Mark shall be awarded if:
(i) a Player catches or takes control of the football before it has passed
completely over the Boundary Line, Goal Line or Behind Line; or
(ii) before the football was caught or controlled by the Player, it was
touched by an Umpire or any other Official.
(b) The field Umpire may consult with the boundary or goal Umpire before
deciding whether a Mark has been taken before the football passed
completely over the Boundary Line, Goal Line or Behind Line."
It's a mark, of course, and always has been.
(a) For the avoidance of doubt, a Mark shall be awarded if:
(i) a Player catches or takes control of the football before it has passed
completely over the Boundary Line, Goal Line or Behind Line; or
(ii) before the football was caught or controlled by the Player, it was
touched by an Umpire or any other Official.
(b) The field Umpire may consult with the boundary or goal Umpire before
deciding whether a Mark has been taken before the football passed
completely over the Boundary Line, Goal Line or Behind Line."
It's a mark, of course, and always has been.
lumpinee
MK ULTRA
thread killer...lol.well done for putting this up,now this has been settled civilly let me just say how F****n inspirational Trent Cotchin was yet again
when our backs were up against the wall and a rocket up the u know where was required ,time and time again hes pulls them onto his back and
demonstrates how its gotta be done,thanks Trent,u sir are a true leader of the highest order
Agree. While I lean towards it probably was a mark (via my yellow-and-black glasses), it wasn't a clear case of 'umpire got it wrong'.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 44,366
- 90,201
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Let’s avoid thwe fact that your boys couldn’t kick a goal for 56 minutes, one touch is always a mark.......If Carey said it it must be true
Similar threads
