New definition of a mark?

[goswannie14]

Since when has jumping high attempting to mark and touching the ball fleetingly been a mark?

Is this the new Reiwoldt rule?

I have no qualms when the player has control of the ball, but yesterday Reiwoldt had no control of the ball on two occasions, was paid the mark and goaled. Absolutely pathetic.

[Bob Neil]

I thought Swans were hard done by the umps early in the game but we got a few luckies in the last Q.
Big Footy consensus is the umps tried to give it to Swans due to 1 or 2 luckies in Q4.
As soon as Reiwolt gets any control, even if fleeting, it's a mark then a certain goal. He's no Jetta.
There was one I thought wasn't a mark but, from another angle, he was chopped (by LRT or Esky?).
Do you have YouTube of one that clearly wasn't?

[liz]

One of the two Riewoldt "non-marks" should definitely have been a free to Riewoldt regardless because LRT wrapped his arms around Riewoldt's neck in the process of spoiling. The other one was more dubious - looked like a Swan defender knocked the ball from Riewoldt's hands at about the same point he would otherwise have had control over it. Sometimes you see those paid, sometimes not.

I am clearly one-eyed but I thought Richmond had clearly the better of the marginal umpiring decisions. They were getting frees for in-the-back tackles that the Swans weren't getting from very similar instances. One free to Griffiths about 60-70m out that led to a Richmond goal was baffling to say the least. And one of Collins' marks there were clearly hands in the back of Smith in front.

That said, Richmond won the game because they were more spirited in the final quarter and the Swans stopped to a trot, not because of the umpiring.

(And the free to Mumford in front of goal was soft as - he was knocked over by a little bloke in the process of kicking, not really late. And I have little doubt Mumford could have kept his feet had he wanted to, given the size difference between him and the Tiger offender.)

[Melbournehammer]

One of the two Riewoldt "non-marks" should definitely have been a free to Riewoldt regardless because LRT wrapped his arms around Riewoldt's neck in the process of spoiling. The other one was more dubious - looked like a Swan defender knocked the ball from Riewoldt's hands at about the same point he would otherwise have had control over it. Sometimes you see those paid, sometimes not.

I am clearly one-eyed but I thought Richmond had clearly the better of the marginal umpiring decisions. They were getting frees for in-the-back tackles that the Swans weren't getting from very similar instances. One free to Griffiths about 60-70m out that led to a Richmond goal was baffling to say the least. And one of Collins' marks there were clearly hands in the back of Smith in front.

That said, Richmond won the game because they were more spirited in the final quarter and the Swans stopped to a trot, not because of the umpiring.

(And the free to Mumford in front of goal was soft as - he was knocked over by a little bloke in the process of kicking, not really late. And I have little doubt Mumford could have kept his feet had he wanted to, given the size difference between him and the Tiger offender.)

The hands in the back was very obvious - he had both hands there. But I think the umpires are beginning to revert back to an older interpretation - push in the back - I've seen a few hands in the back in recent weeks where umpires have let the mark stand - despite the more recent harsh beyond belief interpretations where the mere existence of a touch was sufficient.

[dimelb]

The hands in the back was very obvious - he had both hands there. But I think the umpires are beginning to revert back to an older interpretation - push in the back - I've seen a few hands in the back in recent weeks where umpires have let the mark stand - despite the more recent harsh beyond belief interpretations where the mere existence of a touch was sufficient.

I've had the same impression The game's better for it.