#29 Patrick Ambrose


He didn't actually mark his own kick there, he just marked the ball.

The commentators couldn't see that what happened was he got his foot under the ball, which was kicked out of the backline by a Crow, and then he followed it up and took the mark with a 2nd grab, .. no different than if it had come off his fist.

A surprisingly good umpiring decision.


Played well again, has become our best KPD


Once it comes off his foot doesn't it become a 'new' kick though which has to travel 15m? I mean if instead of poppping up to him it ricocheted out of on the full it would have counted as a kick then.


Interestingly, took game high intercept marks [ 3 ], and this is an emerging feature of his game having taken 2-3 in several of the previous games.
A quick check reveals it is not common for players to take more than 3 intercept marks in any game except for freaks like Jeremy McGovern and Jake Carlisle when he was on fire.


All that is correct if it comes off his boot to someone else, or as you say, OOBOTF, .. but if you take it yourself, it would have to be a second touch/grab mark.

And it's really the only reason the ump could pay it,.. because I don't think you can actually mark your own kick, o/wise we'd surely see it happen at times. It's not that hard to kick the ball high enough to run after it and mark it past 15 metres, .. and even if you could, that one clearly did not travel the 15..


The ump incorrectly paid the mark


Pretty sure I've seen marks that at some point touched the marking player under the knees?


A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches or takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface; and
(b) after it has been Kicked by another Player a distance of at least 15 metres; and
(c) which has not touched the ground or been touched by another Player during the period when the football was Kicked until it was caught or controlled by the Player.

So according to the rule book Paddy could have actually kicked the ball as far as he likes and still be paid themark


Hmm. Depends on whether his kick cancels clause B or not. I’d like to think that’s written in the “interpretations” somewhere, but I somehow doubt it is.


"Kicked by ANOTHER player"


What if Paddy volley kicked it back to the guy who kicked it to him in the first place?




How's our best kpd Atm by a long way, sign him up asap


I think the umpire nailed it, prior to Paddy making contact with the ball clause A and B have been satisfied. Paddy's contact with the ball satisfies clause C.

But, on reflection, I suppose DJR's doubt is reasonable. If clause B is nullified the moment Paddy's foot touches the ball and it is no longer classed as "Kicked by another player". However if the umpire was fully cognisant of Paddy's kick not travelling 15 metres, he was actively interpreting it as Paddy marking the previous kick because no one else had touched it and it hadn't touched the ground.

Quite likely, as DJR indicated, this has never been officially resolved.

If it is a legitimate way of marking the ball, will we ever see a player palm the ball out of the air, kick it intentionally to a more advantageous position to kick a goal and then complete the mark?

I'd like to see that.


Incorrect decision, yes.

You cannot kick the ball to yourself and have a mark be paid


It's just like juggling a mark


No it isn't.
Any contact below the knee to the ball is considered a new possession


I'm willing to believe you if you can find the rule that counters the very clear marking rule.


Would this not counter act it?
Ambrose cannot be 'another player' in reference to himself


No the another player was the Crows player, if a ball came off a Cricketers foot and he caught it before it hit the turf, would it not be a catch?

Also, I take it you're not sure, but are just guessing then?