The ball trapped in the end zone was the correct call. The targeting calls have been the most irritating to me. What is a defensive player to do when he's going low to avoid hitting the ball carrier in the head but the ball carrier lowers his head? It should be a penalty for the ball carrier to do that.
But the overturn on the scoop and score IMO was ridiculous. What is a "football move"? If having control of the ball with both hands and taking three steps isn't a football move then you're not going to be able to explain it to me.
danged tiglets.
droner,
I can agree that the scoop and score is very debatable. I can see both sides of that discussion. Watching in real time, I thought that it was incomplete. After watching the slow motion replay, I'm still not convinced that it was a catch but can see that he controls it at least long enough to plant both feet and begin to take another step. The argument that replay didn't have enough evidence to overturn is a valid one.
On the targeting call, I personally think that had the defender kept his head up he would not have been called for targeting. 'See what you are hitting' and most of the time you will be excluded from that call, imo. In today's game, the crown of the helmet being used to tackle is almost always going to result in a penalty and ejection and will always lead to debate on the call.
My biggest problem with targeting, btw, is that ball carriers are allowed to lower the head and use the crown of the helmet without penalty - is that not as dangerous as a tackler doing the same thing?
