I know what the reason behind it is, but that doesn't make it right or even sensible.

I agree that's it's a no-win situation, and that someone will always lose, but on balance, I'd say that crowds are more used to seeing tries being disallowed - for forward passes, shepherds, off-sides etc (some of them very contentious) - than they are to seeing tries awarded that are not tries. So, they'd probably be more accepting of a 'no try - play on' rule.

I'd also suggest that if neither the on-field ref nor the video ref are able to tell whether it's a 'perfectly good try' or not, the vast majority of everyone else in the stadium will be in the same boat.

Hull KR might have felt aggrieved last night if that try had been chalked off, but seeing as they only had Joe Burgess's assurance that he'd scored, probably not for very long. Most likely, they'd just have got on with the game and mounted another attack. But as it was, instead of both teams remaining in the same position as before, Rovers were handed a game-changing advantage.

I just can't accept that a referee, who by his own admission didn't see what happened, is allowed to add "but it was probably a try".

Just send it up to the video ref like originally. No problem then. Simples

Just send it to the video ref to determine if the ball was legally grounded. If there is no video evidence that the ball was grounded then it’s no try, simple

Just let the referee make the decision and do away with the VR.

I like that even better

We have to have a system and whatever the system is there will be controversy.

For me, if the refs not sure sent it to the VR. Ref to indicate his thoughts of try or no try. Give the VR a set amount of time eg 2 mins to make a decision of most probable outcome, if the VR can’t decide on the balance of probability then go with the refs call.