After various discussion with my sons about the curious coincidence by which the TMO controversially intervened to disallow home tries against the All Blacks two weeks running, No 2 Son produced the following:

“It should be noted that the World Rugby Laws apply equally to Players and Match Officials. Thus the Match officials Law 6 sits side by side in the Law book with the May 2018 amended Tackle Law 14.10 re the new offside line (which is open to a number of interpretations of consistency with other Laws).

Under Law 6.5.a. it states that "The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match".
This is followed by Law 6.16. which states that "Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO."

So far so good.

However the TMO Global Protocol Jan 2018 is now included in the Law book under Law 6.16 and any reviews must take place in accordance with this Protocol.
www.laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Protocol_Jan_18_EN.pdf

Para 2 deals with infringement when scoring a try.

Para 2.1 confirms that "any of the match officials (including the TMO) may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review." This therefore complies with Law 6.5.a. on referee as sole judge. But Para 2.1 also states that the potential infringement has to be within the list of [appropriate] offences under Para 2.3.

Notwithstanding that Para 2.3 states that these potential infringements must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS, Law 14.10 is expressly excluded from the list. Similarly Law 15.4. (offside at a ruck) is excluded although oddly enough Law 15.5. and 15.9. (joining a ruck) are expressly included.

Para 2.4 now gives the damning protocol that "referee judgement decisions for all other aspects of the game [other than the list under Para 2.3] are NOT included in the protocol and MAY NOT be referred to the TMO.

So in funerarius for Garces, to stress, it is CLEAR and OBVIOUS that he should not have agreed on the TMO’s recommendation to refer the Referee’s decision to award a try to the TMO (for review) under Law 6.16.”

I’m no great admirer of the TMO, holding generally to the view expressed by Nigel Owens that it tends to be overly relied on by weak refs. However this appears to demonstrate that the referee was demonstrably wrong to allow the TMO to review either try, and that by extension both tries should have been allowed on the basis of the referee being unable to define any reason not to (note that neither were flagged up by the linesman, and neither presented a case of incomplete grounding) OR the referee should have exercised his own judgement and disallowed them himself.