Yeah, this is clearly, absolutely and unequivocably NOT the rule in the NFL.

He can't. Once the catch is complete, the play is a TD. if the catch isn't complete, then it's an incomplete pass.

Clearly not a catch in my view. Not even worth a challenge.

That's not the rule.

Let me change the situation -- let's say that play happened at the five yard line, and in the immediate aftermath of when you say the play is complete, the defender rips the ball out, which squirts away and another Steeler picks it up. Under your rules, that would be a fumble.

You ok with that?

Yes, but not relevant if a half-second later the ball is ripped out. See my prior question about whether you'd be ok if it was ruled a catch/fumble if that exact sequence happens at, say, the 5 yard line and the ball is pulled out and "recovered" by the Steelers.

In a class Reid sequence of about four stupid decisions in a row, not taking the points ranks at the top, but not challenging this is #2, for sure.

I don't believe it was a catch, but with the randomness of officiating and the way the offense and defense had played all day, we had as good a chance of getting that call as we did of coming back and winning a game in which we were down by 2 scores late.

Even if you lose a time out, it would take a two-possession comeback to make that time out even potentially matter. The chance of losing that time out costing us the game was smaller than the chance of winning the challenge.

Reid more or less gambled the game with 10 minutes to go and at least 1 or 2 more possessions and a pocketful of time outs to work with.

Classic example of why he won't win the big one.

All scoring plays are automatically reviewed, as are turnovers and maybe certain other plays.

As it was not called a TD, yes, Andy would have had to have challenged to try to get it reversed.

Not trying to be a dick, but honestly, that's not a TD by any ref under the NFL rules as in effect for the last, whatever, quite a few years now. If Megatron could get screwed by it, so would Gronk.

If he has 2 feet down and controlled the ball in the endzone the play is dead. You said so yourself

So yeah, had this happened in the field of play by that, it would be a fumble

But today's catch no catch rule is about as clear as mud

Agreed that the rule isn't easy to understand, explain or apply, but it definitely isn't just two feet down and control of the ball. You have to "complete the act" of the catch which includes "surviving the ground" if you go to the ground.

Not trying to be a dick either, but heaven forbid the Pats get any help from the refs.....

Like the tuck rule....

Looks like a catch to me with a firm grasp of the ball all the way through & two feet down before being stripped. How long does a player need to hold onto the ball before someone can knock it out at any point?

He didn’t go to the ground, though.

He caught the ball, established both feet (actually tapped three feet total), and never went to the ground.

That was a stupid ass rule. Glad they changed it. But it was correctly applied. Dumb ass rule though.

Almost as dumb as the dumb ass one the Pats got the benefit of yesterday from teh Jets (fumble through end zone awards possession to defense on "touchback").

Two hands and two feet down with clear control in the end zone is and should be by rule a touchdown. It was controlled possession beyond the plane of the end zone... end of story.

LOL if it was really that simple... right!