If the player was yellow carded for it, then it was case of foul play, and a penalty would have been awarded at that point. It wasn't really a case of going back that far to disallow the try as such, just that one happened to have occurred before the penalty for the high tackle was announced.
If it had just been a "simlpe"penalty offence, it (probably) would not have caused the try to be disallowed.
You know what? You're quite right. I was a bit puzzled by your post so I did a bit of digging.
https://resources.world.rugby/world...-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022-v2.pdf
For most offences play can go back
within two phases leading to a possible try, but for foul play any act can be referred until the game restarts. So they
have thought about my complaint about how far back the TMO can go.
I think that maybe my feeling actually comes from the lowering of the bar for foul play. Now this is for safety purposes, I understand that, and I'm not arguing against it. But a wrongly executed tackle, with no malice intended, that results in head contact still doesn't
feel like foul play to me. Not properly foul play. I suppose I just need to get with it.
That said, I still think there's a gradual drift to the TMO getting involved more and more in a kind of "busybody" role for incidents that were under the on-field ref's nose, and the on-field ref let go, rather than just being called on for where the ref was unsighted. (No, I can't think of any real examples right now, sorry) This undermines the ref and the end result is that when "your" team touches down, it's a case of holding your breath to see if the TMO is going to stick their oar in.
