The evidence proves the correct call was made.
It really doesn't!
How can I be proven wrong when the worst case scenario is Greg Inglis grounds the ball and in turn the ball is dead,
Well you can be proven wrong in two ways here if that's what you believe...
1) If Greg Inglis did ground the ball, the decision was incorrect as they didn't give a drop out, this denying a last chance at scoring.
2) Greg Inglis have didn't ground the ball. You can't apply the rules of grounding a ball for a try to the rules of grounding a ball in-goal for a drop out. They are separate laws. Inglis had to make a deliberate attempt to ground the ball, of which he didn't (he was attempting to knock it dead).
So yeah, you've been proven wrong on both possible counts. You can drop that one now and move on to a new fallacy...
and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. Show all the frames you want with a finger touching the ball (and no downward pressure), before the ball gets that far Inglis has put more fingers and pressure onto the ball as he is trying to put it dead, and the force of him pushing it into the ground also bends his fingers back.
Either both grounded it, or neither did. Its as simple as that.
Only if the laws for grounding in-goal are the same for grounding for a try. They are not. So you are wrong.
It's good to know that the argument of "he definitely didn't ground it" is so secure that people have made up new criteria in back play to try and discount it!