What the hell? So because we don't want to be a referee we shouldn't be able to criticize their mistakes?

You are correct, everyone makes mistakes but given the public nature of their role here we have every right to criticize and seek clarification when mistakes happen.

Slightly disagree on that part. The video referee can add drama if it is used correctly. There are plenty of decisions that, on review, can go either way and the decision causes plenty of (justifiable) debate and drama. Similarly, the VR can highlight outstanding pieces of skill - I remember an Ali Lauitiiti try for Leeds against Wigan that, without the video replay, would never have seen an outstanding piece of agility be rewarded. I suspect similar with Kallum Watkins' try at Magic Weekend last season.

The problem is that there is just too much emphasis on the VR, and officials as a whole. Sky seem insistent on looking for controversy and focusing on officials so much that they are almost becoming celebrities and personalities themselves - at the expense of the the real "stars" of the show.

I don't like the focus on video replays, such as hearing them during the decision process, or seeing them tap at a touchscreen. I almost want to see them as a "Deal or No Deal banker" sort of persona.

Torso pressure is tbf in this case not relevant though. You can only score a try that way by dropping on a ball that is in play and already on the ground. In this case, had the ball come loose from the hand before it touched the ground, then that is a knock on, which subsequent torso pressure onto the ball could not negate. The only way to rectify a loose ball is to regather it before it touches the ground.

Although a few years back, we did have a thousand page thread following some incidents where a player had clearly lost control of the ball, in that usually it had clearly been lost from a one-handed grip, but tries were more than once given as contact with the ball may never have bee 100% lost; for example it might appear that at the point of contact with the ground, the player might well still have had one fingertip touching the ball. I always thought that was a bad way to interpret the law, if a player clearly loses any grip of the ball, but that was the position.

I mention it now as things must clearly have changed - the tryscorer (well, not tryscorer as it was ruled) absolutely definitely did have an unbroken contact with the ball and his left hand, until after it touched the ground. Any question I had was how much control he had of the ball (though to me there is no reason to say he didn't have enough).

I AM an active referee. It was a bizarre, inexplicable error. I can only think that someone actually pressed the wrong button by mistake.

This is a perfect example of why the 'benefit of the doubt' business is such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it seems that it is quite a difficult concept.
So what we're saying is that if it looks like someone PROBABLY didn't score but there's a chance, however slight, that he did, a try should be awarded. Even if we think a player ALMOST certainly didn't score? Is that what benefit of the doubt means? And if so, is that what we want?
Or does it mean that only if the vid ref thinks it's a 50/50 call he gives the try?
When I've discussed this with most people they think the latter. 'Roy Haggerty' clearly disagrees. (I'm not having a go at you Roy by the way, just pointing out the confusion that arises).
The vid ref's remit should be just to 'use his knowledge and experience (hopefully) to give his best judgement based on what he can see'. That doesn't mean he won't get it 'wrong' (in other people's view) sometimes because he is just a person. Anyway, the tie-breaker in the event that he thought it was 50/50 should be to hand it back to the ref as per the Aussie system. That would seem sensible especially in a system where we don't have vid refs at all games.