No mark, Mark
Wrong decision and then
We have an incident from a match played in White River near the Kruger National Park which may be of interest.
No it was not a match between the animals and the reptiles but between Samoa and a combination of Pumas (Mpumalanga variety) and Lions.
In the first half the local cats were attacking and Rian Smit chipped into the Samoan 22. Under intense feline pressure the Samoan fullback Uale Mai came to catch the ball. He called Mark. The referee blew the whistle. Mai dropped the ball backwards towards his own line.
That sounds like a long time but the catching, calling, whistling and dropping happened in quick succession.
The referee then said: "Blew assuming a fair catch. Mark not caught. Incorrect decision. Scrum, White ball."
(White = Pumas-Lions.)
Was the referee right?
Refereeing is a practical expression of the laws. We need to look to the laws. They will tell us whether or not the referee was right.
The Laws themselves claim: The Laws of the Game, including the Standard Set of Variations for Under 19 Rugby, are complete and contain all that is necessary to enable the game to be played correctly and fairly.
First of all the mark:
Law 18 Definition 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!”.
Mai was in his 22 and the ball came to him directly from a kick but he did not catch it.
There is a list of reasons why a referee should blow his whistle.
Law 6.A.8 THE REFEREE'S WHISTLE
(a) The referee must carry a whistle and blow the whistle to indicate the beginning and end of each half of the match.
(b) The referee has power to stop play at any time.
(c) The referee must blow the whistle to indicate a score, or a touch-down.
(d) The referee must blow the whistle to stop play because of an infringement or for an offence of foul play. When the referee cautions or sends off the offender, the referee must whistle a second time when the penalty kick or penalty try is awarded.
(e) The referee must blow the whistle when the ball has gone out of play, or when it has become unplayable, or when a penalty is awarded.
(f) The referee must blow the whistle when the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and either team gains an advantage from this.
(g) The referee must blow the whistle when it would be dangerous to let play continue. This includes when a scrum collapses, or when a front-row player is lifted into the air or is forced upwards out of a scrum, or when it is probable that a player has been seriously injured.
(h) The referee may blow the whistle to stop play for any other reason according to the laws.
Those are the reasons the law gives for blowing a whistle. Oddly enough blowing for a Mark, which is not an infringement, is not one of them though everybody knows a referee must blow his whistle for a Mark. In fact the law on the mark says so.
Law 18.1 AFTER A MARK
The referee immediately blows the whistle and awards a kick to the player who made the mark.
The immediacy is important to protect the player. That's what the referee was doing in this case – protecting Mai against the cats who were about to pounce.
But then Mai dropped the ball. The referee had blown for a mark and now instead of giving the free kick to Samoa he gave a scrum to the Pumas-Lions. He altered his decision.
Law 6.A.6 REFEREE ALTERING A DECISION
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.
That Mai did not catch the ball is not contained in this law. The touch judges were not involved.
The referee had blown his whistle for a mark but there was no mark. Blowing the whistle meant that there was a stoppage. There was, apparently, no reason for the stoppage. There had not been a mark and not been a knock-on. The referee had to decide how play would continue.
Law 20.4 (d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
The Pumas-Lions were moving forward and they were the attacking team. So they got the scrum – and scored a try from it.
Perhaps the law is not as complete as it claims. But that is not fair. It is not fair to blame the law for an error of judgement. The referee had blown for a mark, perhaps he should comply with the law and give the mark – and perhaps do a bit of honest blushing. After all it was an error in good faith.
Mind you, there is rationale in law to suggest that what the referee did was right – uncovered irregularity.
Bless the referee. He acknowledged the error for all to hear. He certainly set out to make the best of a bad job. It was one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.
