and if it's inconclusive?

I'm not saying that the current protocol is ideal and there needs to be a review but I'm not sure how it can be improved Benefit of the Doubt to whom?

I'm afraid the game without cameras is a different game.
So it is reffed in a different way. I suppose lots of tries are given because "in all probability a try was scored" after consulting with the assistant refs or touch judges.
There is no perfect answer.

TBH I prefer the days of no video ref, yes you are right about shocking decisions made I have witnessed many over the years (Billy Thompson)but it was the talking point after the game. These days there is a lot more anger over decisions made by video refs because even though we can often see it he will go with the live call made by the on field ref.

You are right that there is no perfect answer but I would have at least preferred it if the video refs decision was a standalone and not driven by the on field decision. Let the video refs give is own decision.

March 13, 1983, quarter final

Warrington 4 Hull 10 (T: Phil Ford; DG: Eccles)

Attendance: 11,218

Referee Billy Thompson disallowed three tries.

I was right in front of one of the disallowed try’s and you are right crooked is the only word to describe it. But I would still rather do without video ref in its current format.

I had the pleasure of his company on a jolly boys day out at Elland Road for a GB test v Australia, the coach stopped to pick up a mystery guest en route at Ainsley Top on the M62, and it was him.

He was the half time speaker and was full of it on the journey. From memory, and I'm sure this won't come as a surprise he was quite unapologetic about his Yorkshire bias and his refereeing in general, a case of decisions being made based on meritocracy as he saw fit, with transgressions being let go if the victim was asking for it.