Clearly, of course one would always choose to score tries on the basis it makes winning more likely. But it’s not certain. Let’s say team A scores an unconverted try. Team B then wins the ball from a short kick-off and scores immediately, converting the try to 6 points, then team A would have been better not scoring!
Of course, it’s all ifs and buts and of course teams don’t turn tries down because of what might happen next, but my point is that sport is a game of infinite possibilities and no certainties. Wigan would have been more likely to win had Clubb’s effort been awarded, but it’s quite possible that they wouldn’t have done.

Again I understand what you're saying and I'm not saying it's a given that Wigan would have won, just a more likely outcome than the opposite. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying had Wigan scored less points they'd have been more likely to win as the game would have been irrevocably changed. The mistake you're making is to think any change would have favoured Cas when, apart from fan loyalty, there is absolutely no reason to think that. It's just as likely that the game would have turned in Wigan's favour. In fact you could argue more likely as it would be Wigan with the points definitely on the board (as opposed to the wishful thinking of what might have happened.)

Let me ask you this; Had Cas scored another 8-12 points would you have expected them to go on to lose that game? If your answer is "yes" I'll accept your point.

Btw, it was 2 wrongly disallowed tries as TL's was also grounded according to all reports.

How is it a nonsense? It has considerably more merit than the opposing view.
Games are won by scoring more points. The game was a tight one and scoring more points increases the chances of winning. That's just common sense. Otherwise we need to write to all the coaches in world sport to tell them to stop trying to outscore their opponents as it reduces their chances of winning.

I think we more or less think the same thing. Scoring points makes winning more likely. My point is that it is too simplistic to argue that Wigan would have won had the tries been awarded. It would have changed the context of the game and every event afterwards.
The infuriates me more in football, when pundits often claim that if a penalty had been awarded /denied the game would have ended with a specific result!
I guess the only thing that matters is what did happen, not the infinite possibilities of what might have happened in different circumstances.

Absolutely, but it's the nature of sport to ask 'what if'. We hear it every week walking away from games and on forums like these. It's not unreasonable to do so either as it's a fact that changing something in a game would, I think we both agree, affect the result. If we only dealt in absolutes we may as well close forums like this down!

As an aside to this it was interesting to see the SOO yesterday. The Blues had a man sin binned and it didn't make a scrap of difference to the result. However, I think there are few that would argue that had Queensland scored a couple more tries that that wouldn't have changed the result either. That's all Wigan fans are saying. Seems like a fair enough argument to me.