It should only be obstruction if the ball carrier runs through the "hole" created by the dummy runner, he didn't, so try every time on that score.

However, you cannot take a player out without the ball regardless of the situation, so penalty defence for that offence, not obstruction, was the correct call.

Charnley did a goodjob of making himself look look foolish by

1. Sporting that 1920s hairstyle
2, That ridiculous celebration
3, Undertaking said ridiculous celebration for naught after it was ruled out.

I noticed his subsquent three tries were celebrated in a much more sombre fashion. Probably ruined his night.

JJB would have got nowhere near what? The try scorer? You miss the point. He would have been able to slide outwards giving defenders outside him the opportunity to get somewhere near. Once he's taken out, the overlap is created and whilst the try may be scored three or four defenders wide of JJB it is created where he is defending and obstructed.

What G1 said.

Exactly.

Still think the try would have been scored.....but once the dummy runner makes deliberate (lifting his shoulder) contact to impede the defender it's 'no try' for me.

Indeed, in fact I'm pretty sure it would have been scored, and a very good try it would have been too...if some numpty hadn't decided to allow the video ref to chalk it off for a stupid offence earlier in the move.