Scotland vs France

Show me where you have an image of that ball touching the line or the ground beyond the line.

Can you explain how the ball couldnt have been touching the ground on/beyond the line, based on the images we all saw? The ball clearly was on the boot and then dropped off it....onto what? A stray choc-ice?

Show me that same image you require but for every other try that was awarded the last two weekends?

If your argument is that every other try is perfectly clear then I am going to disagree with you.

Even Fickou's try, can you guarantee that the ball touched the ground and that it wasn't just his hand/arm on the ground before he slid into touch?

Did anyone ask to check it?

How about Sheehans try? No way the ref saw that amongst the pile of bodies but he blew and awarded anyway. In the below still you can see his arm out as he blows the whistle, no sign of the ball from his angle though, there are 2-3 Irish bodies in the way at least.

Or how about Lowe's try?

For Lowes try the AR had clear sight of it

The reverse angle showed the grounding quite clearly anyway. It's a bit disingenuous to post pictures of tries which had other angles explicitly showing the grounding. For the Scottish non-try, every angle was examined (and even more so since), and nothing conclusive was found. Like most, I think it was probably grounded, but there is not enough video evidence to overturn the on-field decision.

The entire point is that the ref didnt look at ANY replay angles before awarding those tries!

He also awarded the JGP try despite it clearly being knocked on, so obviously he didnt have a good view yet still awarded it in real time.

If he can change his mind about the JGP try, why not the Scottish one?

You mean the opposite angle to the referee who awarded it in real time, instantly after the ball was touched down?

Please read my posts lads, I'm not arguing that these other examples are not tries, my point is that the ref awarded them when clearly he didnt and couldnt have seen the grounding.

If the only avenue open once the Ref goes to the TMO is "Prove me wrong with 100% certainty" then the on field decisions should always go with the attacking team and should be that the try was scored unless something proves contrary.

Yes, I know thats what happened, my point is that its a stupid law and that the BOD should go with the attacking team unless proven otherwise.

"Is there any reason why I cannot award the try" Simple.

It moved backwards on the replay.

Show the picture proof that the ball touched the line or the ground ahead of the line.

It's a simple ask. If they have proof they can change on field, if not they can't

He may have seen a grounding if people in the stands saw it for those other tries. In the Scotland case no-one saw the grounding and no-one can say for certain that there isn't a hand underneath the ball in all the clips examined. Its unfortunate but no way anyone can say a try was definitely scored which is what's needed to overturn the onfield decision.

Grounding check means was it beyond the try line when touching the ground. It was held up in one position, then moved.

The TMO has zero leeway there. They can not see a grounding after the movement

There was multiple bodies piled up. There was no way of knowing if the ball came off the boot and who was moving it and how.

Did a Scottish player push the ball carrier forward but with no control of the ball?

As for the Irish tries, the AR for the Lowe try is perfectly placed, likewise the AR for Sheehans is too and they routinely would give a thumbs up to the ref to indicate they have a grounding.

He might have been closest but that doesnt mean the best angle, hence the TMO.

It was obvious to me that the ref thought he was wrong during the replays and was about to award the try until the TMO went into the "I cant prove you wrong so you have to stick with your on field decision"

But I gave multiple other scenarios where the ref awards the try without any ability to be sure of it but he does it anyway and assumes the TMO or AR will over rule if needed. Why not just make that the default behaviour? Whats wrong with "is there any reason I shouldnt award this try"?

Sure, but not in the timeperiod between the balls being grounded and the ref blowing his whistle. (in the examples I posted)

'The TMO’s opinion was that the replays didn’t show clearly the ball being grounded; but they also didn’t show that it wasn’t, so where was it? It looked down to me, and no reasonable doubt existed to cancel out the try. Surely, these very tight situations should be treated in the same way as a penalty try, on the basis of probability. Common sense, dare I say.' - Owen Doyle in the Irish Times today

Imho Doyle is hanging out TMO Brian McNiece & Ref Nic Berry to dry here.

Maybe a Law change is needed to avoid these situations, but with the present Laws the officials had no choice.

This isn't even the Laws. Their decision is covered by the "Television Match Official TMO) Protocol" document. The first guiding principal of the protocol is that the referee remains the lead decision maker. That pretty much covers this situation. Once Nic Berry thought the ball was held up he'd made the only common sense decision available.

No amount of cameras will give us the most accurate decisions possible without creating contentious outcomes like this.