IMHO No, there was no block in the back anywhere on the Chark return. A block has to be just that... a block. An incidental glance, especially when it's obvious the would-be blocker attempted to avoid contact, is not illegal. No, I don't think White should have been flagged for targeting, either. Yes, there was helmet to helmet contact, but I saw no deliberate attempt to lead with the helmet. Again, the contact was incidental. No, Magee didn't false start. Orgeron's FG decision was correct in retrospect, because it worked, but at that point a head coach should ask himself which is more likely... a successful 42 yard field goal or picking up 4th and very short. And picking up 4th and short would have guaranteed that Auburn would never touch the ball again on offense. I would have gone for the first and work for a shorter field goal. If our FG had missed many of us would be insisting how dumb O was. As for Malzahn's own decision.... well, let's just say that between Orgeron and Malzahn I'd take Orgeron's smarts any day of the week.
It would have been a block in the back if the ref had seen it that way and thrown a flag. Replay would have shown him wrong but those calls are not reviewable. That's why, like Nootch, I couldn't enjoy the run while it was happening. I kept looking for the yellow flag indicator at the bottom left of the screen.
I didn't enjoy the run much, either. Only got excited when he reached the end zone and there still were no flags.
I was excited when the ball was snapped for the XP; I think someone else here took it to that extreme.
I thought the same until they showed the replay showing that it wasn't a block at all. If you watch the back judge he reaches for his flag. Glad he didn't throw it.
Yep, I saw it (cause it did look like one) Danielsen mentioned it so he saw it too but turns out he missed him all together
they called it a good no call because it didn't affect the play... that defender wasn't going to touch Chark anyway... bug eyes would call it, even if it was 50 yds behind the play...