Proving a negative is a pretty arduous task let me tell you. I work in IT so the impetus is on me to test my stuff until I can be sure that there isn't any problems...this is fiendishly tricky. In this case it's the way it has to be. The same applies to criminal cases. The prosecution has to prove that there isn't any doubt that a defendant did the crime whilst the defence merely has to prove that it's possible that he/she didn't do it. Again this is the way it has to be. Should proving a negative be applied to more areas of life...for example should I have to prove I'm telling the truth whenever I say everything or should things be taken at face value. Taken further if when claiming a lottery win should I have to prove that at the last moment before handing over my ticket I didn't suddenly rip the ticket up thus invalidating it.....okay I'm being facetious now however it struck me that that was what Northampton were having to do in Saturday's crunch match against Bristol. Saints had clearly breached the Bristol line and flopped on top of the ball...the video replay couldn't see whether the grounding was true and so denied the try. I know that's the rule but is it correct? In going to ground in the try area with the ball under control haven't Saints done as much as is humanly possible to score a try. Should the fact that the camera angles couldn't prove that there wasn't a Bristol arm underneath the ball be enough to chalk off their efforts. It's just counter-intuitive. The try has been scored, the only thing that should chalk it off is evidence of a brilliant bit of defending....the brilliant bit of defending should be assumed just 'cause it can't be disproved surely. I mean if the ball is squirming about or it mightn't actually be over the line then fine go for the replay but don't just do it 'cause you can and then disallow the try 'cause you can't prove a negative. The phrase "benefit of the doubt" needs to be looked at...at the point the replay was asked for there is no quesiton whatsoever that the ball was over the line and under a Saint...the only doubt was if Bristol had held it up. I know there's never going to be a 100% method on getting this right but surely given where there is doubt you need to err on the side of the team that's basically done it's job. Am I just naive on this or in this case is the ref and the video ref bottling it 'cause they don't want to court controversy.