i was at the game (sitting in front of the family hill so no decent view of the big screen)& couldn't figure out why the manly try in the second half was dis-allowed. also what was the ensuing penalty for?
mmmdl said:What I don't understand about that particular play was that the refs had called 6 again, and to check the try. If it's no try, and the Roosters knocked the ball on, why doesn't it come back to the first infringement?
mmmdl said:What I don't understand about that particular play was that the refs had called 6 again, and to check the try. If it's no try, and the Roosters knocked the ball on, why doesn't it come back to the first infringement?
Stevo said:mmmdl said:What I don't understand about that particular play was that the refs had called 6 again, and to check the try. If it's no try, and the Roosters knocked the ball on, why doesn't it come back to the first infringement?
Because a penalty over rules an error. :rules:
Shoe1 said:mmmdl said:What I don't understand about that particular play was that the refs had called 6 again, and to check the try. If it's no try, and the Roosters knocked the ball on, why doesn't it come back to the first infringement?
True why not?
Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
8 | 7 | 1 | 109 | 16 | |
8 | 7 | 1 | 56 | 16 | |
8 | 6 | 2 | 66 | 14 | |
8 | 5 | 3 | 51 | 12 | |
9 | 5 | 3 | 37 | 11 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | 95 | 10 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | 42 | 10 | |
8 | 4 | 4 | 25 | 10 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | -14 | 10 | |
9 | 4 | 5 | -16 | 8 | |
9 | 4 | 5 | -19 | 8 | |
8 | 3 | 5 | -55 | 8 | |
9 | 4 | 5 | -70 | 8 | |
9 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 7 | |
8 | 2 | 6 | -63 | 6 | |
8 | 1 | 7 | -89 | 4 | |
8 | 1 | 7 | -166 | 4 |