Here is the video of the try starting at the play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEyH4OIH3hQ#t=3m18s
Here is the rule.
OBSTRUCTION –
a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
- Morris did not interfere with Ashford. Ashford committed himself to the decoy runner. This happens every game.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
- There was no advantage as NO player was stopped from getting to the man with the ball. See a.
c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.
- N/A
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
- See point a.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
- N/A
f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.
- N/A
g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.
- TRY TIME! You also need to watch G. Ellis, he could have actually stopped this try, but he stopped shifting over, the lazy git!
EDIT: And for other reasons, I was looking at the captain's challenge per the following criteria
HOW THE NRL’S PROPOSED CAPTAIN’S CHALLENGE SYSTEM WILL WORK
* Each team will be permitted one incorrect challenge per half
* Areas of challenge are likely to be limited to:
- A loss of possession (knock-on or strip) that leads to a structured restart (scrum or penalty)
- A decision that led to the ball going into touch or touch in-goal
- Any decision involving try, no-try or point scoring decisions made by on-field officials that were not previously referred to the video-referee
- A mandatory penalty (such as a member of the team in possession being offside and restart infringements).
In this I found excluding all events that were referred to the video ref already (and we can assume they were challenged automatically).
12 min Pritchard was stripped of the ball in a 3 man tackle and it was ruled knock on. I would have challenged this given the field position and how the Dogs were playing at this point in the game.
29th min Jackson going for a try. The ball was knocked out and backwards by the Tigers. It was ruled knock on. Once again I would have challenged this.
Another note that if the rule was in effect, and lets say the Tigers challenged the two video ref decisions (which the ref called both times held up straight away), they would not have been able to challenge this play. It would have been interesting to see how the ref called this play if he had to make a decision their and then. I think this may have ended differently.
