lawyers with time and time on their side rule the world, and any decision you take can be questioned by people who can take hours/days/weeks to review your decisions which affected real lives that you had to take in a minute or so.
A totally hypothetical query - does the following seem at all possible:
For the TAM A320, the final, fateful decision window for pulling any chance of success from a bad set of circumstances seems likely not longer than 5 or ten seconds, after allowing time for discovery of the problem and before allowance of time for putting into effect the fateful plan B.
If the aircraft were properly planted on the runway, various deceleration means deployed & activated, and yet ground speed reduction was not happening according to normal - for reasons unknown, a large chunk of the window for any go-round decision could have already passed before the deadly seriousness of the problem was clear.
If a last-chance decision was considered under such circumstances, it possibly was to either A) attempt a go-round, even with one reverser deployed, or B) not go-round despite clearly excessive speed on the ground and certain knowledge the aircraft would experience that awful drop at runway's end, with terrible consequences almost inevitable.
If the PF believed the reverser could not be stowed safely in time to execute a go-round - or the outcome might not be knowable until too late, then a rational decision might have been to kill thrust ASAP on the engine with the reverser deployed and go to maximum TOGA thrust on the engine with reverser locked out. This choice could have made for an improvised single engine departure with lots of negatives in the profile.... but still a chance at flight and maybe instinctively better than going over that wall at runway's end.
Would this option stand any chance of success?