The Mark - good or bad?

[mountainboii]

In Armagh today we got a glimpse of the disaster the mark rule can be in the hands of the wrong referee. You know, the type of officious w**ker that insists on every kick being taken from an exact spot and who refuses to use common sense and let the ball catcher play on when it is an advantage for him to do so.

After three games I am not in favour of it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I don't feel the benefit for the odd high catcher who finds himself bottled up is sufficient to put up with the additional stuttering of the play.

But do you not think that it was the ref's interpretation of the rule that slowed the game up rather than the rule itself? The last two Armagh games I felt the mark was reffed properly as the ref used the advantage rule when it applied, as you say today that plonker just blew the whistle straight away. If reffed properly the rule will not slow the game up.

Fair point. With a few tweaks and a bit of sensible refereeing, it could have a future. My main worry is that useless, common sense free refereeing performances like the one today are not infrequent. As it currently stands, the mark rule has huge potential for inconsistency, and therefore, controversy.

[mountainboii]

In the new trial rules does the referee HAVE to award a mark or can he let the player play on?

If it is to have any chance of working then the player has to have the choice (a la Aussie rules).

There was one occasion today in Armagh when James Lavery caught a mark and had burst through the tacklers and had plenty of empty space in front of him.  As already mentioned, the ref called him back about 10 yards to take the mark.
The ref shrugged his shoulders as if to say "I can do nothing about it, them's the rules".

That would've been the sensible way of doing things. God knows why they thought it would be better to leave it up to the referee.

[mackers]

In the new trial rules does the referee HAVE to award a mark or can he let the player play on?

If it is to have any chance of working then the player has to have the choice (a la Aussie rules).

There was one occasion today in Armagh when James Lavery caught a mark and had burst through the tacklers and had plenty of empty space in front of him.  As already mentioned, the ref called him back about 10 yards to take the mark.
The ref shrugged his shoulders as if to say "I can do nothing about it, them's the rules".

Noticed that myself but that was typical of the way that the match was refereed, the mark doesn't HAVE to be given, it is to be used at the discretion of the ref which was obviously too complicated for him.
As i said earlier, it's like a lot of other rules, there's nothing wrong with it if it is properly refereed.

[Buckass]

At Sligo-Gmit game today and while ref was poor he operated the mark well. When a player was in space he let it go but if fielder was challenged on landing he blew it up.
The handpass/fistpass one was a disaster. Especially tough on lads tackled to ground who were inclined to handpass out

[Lawrence of Knockbride]

There was a similar occurrence in the Tyrone v Cavan game where he called back a Cavan man who had space in front of him to run into. In the international rules is it not the case that the officials blew the whistle to indicate a clean catch but that the player could still carry on with the ball even though the whistle had gone?

[INDIANA]

Think the Marks a waste of time. More balls being broken now then ever before.

[Jinxy]

There was plenty of ball caught in Parnell Park yesterday Indiana.

[muppet]

There was a similar occurrence in the Tyrone v Cavan game where he called back a Cavan man who had space in front of him to run into. In the international rules is it not the case that the officials blew the whistle to indicate a clean catch but that the player could still carry on with the ball even though the whistle had gone?

That to me is the way to go. A whistle to indicate the mark and then the player has a choice to play on or stop. The caveat probably has to do with taking the mark from no further forward than where the mark was made. Irish players have always struggled with this in International Rules. Whereas the Aussies diligently trot back before taking the kick our lot seem genetically programmed not to take a single step backwards.

[Hardy]

That's all true, Muppet.

I haven't seen a game with marks yet, so can't comment on the experiment, but one suggestion I'd make is to do away with the whistle for the mark altogether. I always found it very irritating in the IR to have whistles going every time a ball was caught. Your natural inclination is to expect play to stop and the player's natural inclination must be the same.

Everyone knows it's a free kick if the ball is caught from the kickout, so let the player play on or stop as he wishes and only blow the whistle if somebody tries to tackle him before four steps.

[Any craic]

http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnj91 - Niall McKenna gets marked down after a catch against Cavan. To be fair to the ref, maybe he just made a mistake. It's a good idea overall, I've been at 6 games and it's never really been an issue, apart from this one.

[EagleLord]

The mark is a great idea, and it should stay. The only problem as you all say is about whether the player has the choice to play on or stop and take the mark. I dont think there is any real argument against it. The mark is a real crowd pleaser, and it rewards an excellent skill, thats the bottom line to be honest.

[thejuice]

I think it should stay, we've finally found a use for Mark Ward

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I think it should stay, we've finally found a use for Mark Ward

And it protected Ronan McGarrity 

[Throw ball]

In theory the mark is a good idea. BUT Is it right that a midfielder of about 6ft 4in can get a mark while a defender of about 5ft 10in can make a great catch under pressure in his own area and then get blown up for over carrying. Also on a separate note the refs need to watch the right player takes he mark. Unless mistaken yesterday a Meath player made a great catch. A second player took the free and hit it against an Armagh player and the ref moved the ball up. I thought a throw ball was the correct call! 

[Bensars]

Bad thing.

Makes the game stop start. Also favours the bigger player. If a man catches the ball he is entitled to be tackled once he lands. It would destroy the heat of battle of championship football.

Dont know whys theres a constant need to change the rules.