Watching replay

[yee dawgy]

The play where Fitz scored at the end of first half was OBVIOUS targeting by #20 for awburn. In the replay it should’ve been impossible to miss by the officials. Can they call targeting on a replay if it wasn’t called in live play?

 

[L4Dawg]

The play where Fitz scored at the end of first half was OBVIOUS targeting by #20 for awburn. In the replay it should’ve been impossible to miss by the officials. Can they call targeting on a replay if it wasn’t called in live play?

Yes.

 

[Rare Dogness]

That was actually my first reaction... he didn't get in but that was targeting so new set of downs

 

[West Tn Dawg]

If you watch the entire video, I believe the ball crossed the plain and then he was pushed around sideways. They only want to show the still shot of him laying sideways to the goal line. It WAS a TD in my opinion.

 

[patdog]

Yeah. He got in.

 

[maroonmania]

Yeah. He got in.

I've watched the replay a few times since getting back home and haven't definitively seen a shot where the ball ever looks to be vertically over the goal line BUT if we caught a break against Auburn on that we were certainly due one against them with some of the calls we've gotten, or not gotten, in recent years. I know just last year the SEC refs stole a TD from us at Auburn when we forced a fumble from Stidham that we ran in that would have put us up 7-0 in the game but it was strangely somehow called an incomplete forward pass.

 

[Fogdog]

I noticed the targeting while watching live. Couldn’t understand how they could show the damn play 20 times on TV and no one ever mentioned it.

 

[RiverCityDawg]

Fitz lowered his head too and he wasn't defenseless. I hear what you guys are saying with the defender leading with the crown of his helmet, but they're never going to call that play targeting, nor should they.

 

[ChillbillyRock]

Yeah. He got in.

Yep. The ball definitely got into the “white” part of the end zone line. Didn’t cross the entire line though. But definitely touched down.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Not to mention the blatant holding by them in the end-zone on that play they hit a huge bomb for a 1st down at our 42. Should have been a safety awarded to us, with them required to free-kick to us, which was a near guarantee of a short field for us.

Game was very much in doubt at that point. Was 21-10. Should have been 21-16 with us getting the ball back (4 points lost on the fumble-for-TD we got screwed out of + the 2 points for safety). Them hitting that play and getting a subsequent TD changed the game entirely. That's when we had to switch to high-risk plays, which resulted in the game snow-balling on us at the end.

To summarize, instead of it being 21-16 AU with us receiving the ball after a safety early in the 3rd Q, it instead became 28-10 halfway through the 3rd. After that we had to go risky, which resulted in 2 INT's and 3 turnover-on-downs.

 

[Mayor of Little London]

Yep. The ball definitely got into the “white” part of the end zone line. Didn’t cross the entire line though. But definitely touched down.

Just the tip

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Just the tip

That’s all it has to do to be a TD....

 

[MedDawg]

The play where Fitz scored at the end of first half was OBVIOUS targeting by #20 for awburn. In the replay it should’ve been impossible to miss by the officials. Can they call targeting on a replay if it wasn’t called in live play?

Fitz most definitely made it in. He didn't end up past the goal line, but his entire upper body was past the goal line before he was pushed back and down. And there was targeting but not called. However, we only had 4 seconds left before the TD play, so if he was ruled short of the TD but targeting was called, we might have been able to run one more play with no time on the clock.

These screenshots show Fitz' whole upper body past the goal line before going down. Even if Fitz held the ball on his groin the ball would have broken the plane.

View attachment 11537

View attachment 11538