Play on after mark rule?

[Somebody]

Is there a rule that says another player can't play on from his teammate's mark? I saw this happen in first half - Rocca awarded the mark - held long enough but the ball came off his hands and Medders scooped it up and ran in to kick a goal - not allowed and Rocca (needless to say) missed the shot.
If this is a rule it is ridiculous since if he missed the mark we would have got a goal so taking the mark penalizes the team.
If it's not a rule then the maggots cost us another one with pathetic umpiring. (Having said that I think umpiring is probably a very difficult job, and overall they seem pretty good considering.)

 

[mdc]

Once the umpire's called a mark, if Rocca wants to give it to Medhurst he has to do so legally - if it just falls out of his hands after the whistle's blown and is picked up by another player it's tantamount to a throw really.

 

[MarkT]

It’s the advantage rule. The umpire can call advantage to prevent a team having to take a free kick and therefore being penalised. That can’t be done after a mark is awarded. The player taking the mark can play on but no advantage call can be made by the umpire.

 

[Jabso]

This rule is ok, but when the umpire decides to award the mark and then say there is a push in the back, where if the player had not marked it, it would have been a free kick and advantage would have been availble, but when he pays the mark, he can't pay advantage despite the fact it could have easily been a free kick. There needs to be more common sense in umpiring.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

It was a correct decision, given that he paid the mark. This is precisely the reason that in a situation where there is both a free kick AND a mark, the umpire is instructed to pay the free kick, and not the mark.

My concern is that I don't think the mark was really there... Umpires find new and inventive ways to screw Collingwood, such as giving them calls that end up disadvantaging the side. If Medhurst wasn't there for the crumb, there's no way the mark would have been paid to Rocca.

 

[mdc]

This rule is ok, but when the umpire decides to award the mark and then say there is a push in the back, where if the player had not marked it, it would have been a free kick and advantage would have been availble, but when he pays the mark, he can't pay advantage despite the fact it could have easily been a free kick. There needs to be more common sense in umpiring.

That's one long sentence ...I think the problem there is that it's very difficult to make a split second call like that. And if they get the call wrong (i.e. it wasn't a free but they allowed advantage), they would get killed for it. Umpires have enough opportunities to make mistakes, I don't think they need another.

 

[Somebody]

OK so that is the rule, if paid and the ball flies free, same team can't play on.
OK but why? What is the sense in that rule if it sometimes penalizes the team that was paid the mark? I can't see any reason for it.

(of course they really lost it by missing about 5 shots at goal in 2nd q, which gave Richmond confidence).

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

OK so that is the rule, if paid and the ball flies free, same team can't play on.
OK but why? What is the sense in that rule if it sometimes penalizes the team that was paid the mark? I can't see any reason for it.

Well, look at it this way: Rocca takes the mark, and the mark is paid - For someone else to get it, Rocca has to dispose of the ball to give it to them. When Medhurst picks up the ball and runs off with it, Rocca has not disposed of the ball, and therefore Medhurst can't have it.

 

[MarkT]

OK so that is the rule, if paid and the ball flies free, same team can't play on.
OK but why? What is the sense in that rule if it sometimes penalizes the team that was paid the mark? I can't see any reason for it.

As I understand it, the rule is not about a mark and what can happen afterwards. It is a specific rule about awarding a free kick that penalises the side. What you are asking fro is another rule which allows an umpire to pay advantage after a mark if the ball spills. That wouldn’t be overly common outside an incorrect decision to pay the mark or some sort of infringement which brings back into the play advantage rule. Of course they will be instances where a marked ball spills and an advantage could have been gained but as I said that would require a new rule specific to marking decisions. Worth some thought but IMO not one to get to worked up over.

 

[Chase the Ace]

As I understand it, a player can't play on Forward of the mark, he must go back behind the mark and then he can play on.

In addition if the umpire has called time on, then he must wait until time is started again