Is there any reason I can't award the try?

I know we have some lawyers amongst us. Not sure how many are trial lawyers but would this line of questioning hold up in a court of law? Ok, much depends on what court of law it is and how the case is decided. But let's imagine this scenario.

Prosecution: Is there any reason why I can't convict this man of murder?

Defence witness: Well if we review the evidence...

Prosecution: Never mind the evidence the defence has spoken about. Disregard that. Just answer my question.

Defence witness: Well I don't think I can if I can't take into consideration...

Prosecution: I just want to look at the killing. Never mind the rest. Now answer the question.

Defence witness: Well...

Ever get the feeling that the phrase is there any reason why I can't award the try doesn't allow the TMO to give a full answer. Ok we don't want him to look back five minutes of footage or more and say well there is this. Some parameters need to be given by the ref and his authority shouldn't be undermined.

Do the refs feel pressure to get a quick resolution? It doesn't help that the TMO squinting at the footage looks like my grandfather trying to write an email. Just the one view to look at instead of multiple screens isn't helping things either. But sometimes are the refs too narrow in their use of the TMO and not open enough to suggestion?

 

In penal law, the suspects are deemed innocent before being convicted (maybe not in all countries mind) so it is the exact opposite of rugby where the benefit of the doubt goes to the "offense" rather than "defenseé.

I see it very differently. Both questions invite the TMO to review everything building up to the try, and neither limits what he can review, but "Any reason I cannot" tells him that a try will be awarded unless he finds a good reason not to.

I wish the question was posed more often. When there's a pile-up on the line, it's virtually impossible for a TMO to see a score even when the balance of probabilities suggests a try. I'd prefer it if more refs assumed a try and asked the TMO for a reason to disallow.

That wouldn't stop Ayoub. That was the ball-carrier's arm, not the defender's...

You obviously don't want to undermine the ref's authority. You want him to make the call. But we can't expect the ref to see everything. If there's something he missed on the field, there might be something else worth pointing out to him within reason (obviously in the same passage of play). It may not happen every time but sometimes I feel we're looking at the wrong play. For example, Fourie's try in the Lions 2nd test. I want to have a look at the grounding. How about as well just before he dove for the line and whether his foot went out into touch?