Let's talk about Harris's catch.
 

We have visual evidence he had control of the ball with two feet down.

If someone leans forward and puts the ball across the goal line, then gets it batted away by the defense before he's down, its still a TD.

Reid says he didn't think it was a catch, so he didn't challenge. Why not challenge anyway. Sometimes you get the call when you didn't think you had a chance.

The only way I can see thats not a catch is that stupid rule of controlling the ball when going to the ground.

I havent heard from anyone who knows the rules inside and out. Was this a case of not controlling the ball when going to the ground?

Looks to me like as he gets his second foot down he loses control.

https://i.imgur.com/jHMDBJr.gif

And my question is, if he didn't continue the entire catch process, how long is long enough? Does he need to hang on for another full second, does he need to complete the wrestling match with the defender? Can the ball be knocked out of his hands at any point until the whistle is arbitrarily blown? Even if we say this is definitely not a catch, how late can the ball be knocked out and it be a catch?

He took 3 steps before the ball came free, but I wouldn't expect these refs to give KC a call like that. So, was no surprise, and par for the course of a terrible football afternoon.

Kind of reminded of that Packers Seahawks MNF game a few years ago with the replacement refs. They called it a TD after the Packers guy intercepted it because he ripped it away.

That was a BS call and this should have been a TD.

Reid should have challenged it...period. Win or lose, you have to throw the red flag there.

He didn't control it all the way thru.

Control and 2 feet down on a catch in the emdzone don't automatically make it a catch in today's nfl

It would be nice if someone could gif it up for us to see. I felt like it was the right call at the time. But if I saw it again, I might agree that your argument is valid.

It wasn't a catch, if it didn't hit the ground might have been an INT instead

Can we define all the way through. Is that until the ref blows the whistle or is it more objective than that?

That play would probable be ruled incomplete or a fumble outside the end zone, so it is IN the end zone, too.

Just another "WTF Andy?!?!" moment. Really shoulda challenged here. But we all know what that outcome woulda been: no catch.

It's objective

I do not think it was a catch, in terms of completing the process. It was just a drop.

I also find it interesting that no one else, the announcers or anyone thought it worthy of a challenge, and there hasn't been any discussion in the media that I have seen about it being a questionable call, so I think this is most non-Chief fans' view on it.

The endzone is different though. You couldn't have a fumble in that situation as you would have to establish possession of the catch to have a fumble and once that happens the play is dead

Yet I still don't get why Smith looks at Harris when in the redzone.

Maybe I am missing it then, can you objectively tell me how long Harris would need to retain possession?

I officially have no idea what is and isn't a catch in today's NFL.

Ball broke the plane of the endzone.


2 feet down Ball in 2 hands in endzone = catch, play over.

It's not debatable unless NFL.

It's ok....neither do the refs.

You can't say Reid should have challenged it, but then say 'well, it wouldn't have been ruled a catch anyway'.

That's just ****ing stupid. If you believe that, then you're okay with him just arbitrarily wasting a time out (which people bitch about him doing all the time). He would have needed that TO at the end of the game to have a shot to win.

And according to the NFL there isn't a process to complete a catch.

That have no ****ing clue what a catch really is anymore.

Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Still has to complete the "process" which didn't happen IMO

Yet no one knows exactly what the "process" is anymore.

you still challenge, regardless.

Exactly how can an offensive player have possession of the football in the end zone and then fumble?

I thought it was a catch/TD, but I also do not have a clear understanding of the rules.

I also think that had we challenged, there was not enough evidence to overturn it.

He can't. But apparently he has to maintain control long enough to become a runner in the end zone, too.

Which seems stupid, honestly.

True. We have seen the NFL changes calls if the ball even moves a little bit during the catch. To me this wasn't even close to catch and more likely would have been an INT if it didn't hit the ground.

The bigger question is why they continue to put Harris in situations like this because he can't catch worth a damn.

Once you have possession in the endzone, the play is dead. Establishing when possession occurs is the debate here though so yeah, it seems stupid

As soon as both of your feet hit the ground in the endzone, as long as you still have possession, then it's a ****ing TD. It's complete and utter bullshit that you have to check off 10 different things to catch a TD but the line of the endzone goes on forever and it doesn't matter if you're hovering above the out of bounds.....it's a TD if you cross it.

I think if Harris puts down two feet, steps out of bounds and then the ball gets knocked out it is ruled a catch
Maybe I am wrong, and fully believe incomplete may be the right call, I just wish they could better define something that likely can't be more clearly defined.

I also felt like the defender didn't even attempt to displace the ball until two feet were down. He was the only one touching the ball, the ball was not moving, and he put two feet down. After that happened the defender successfully knocked the ball loose

I dunno

That was a pretty damn fine effort from Harris

This. I mean...what the hell...not sure how you can blame him for this.

Why is it always Harris that Alex is looking for in those situations? I see Harris and Travis in that gif. Where in the **** is Kelce?

That wasn't the best look but Harris has actually come up big in the end zone these last couple years.

In such a tight space there isn't much wiggle room and your stars are going to be keyed on. It's almost genius to look to the 6'6" back up TE.

Yes it was great effort, not that great of a pass and would have been a tough catch for anybody. I just don't have any trust in Harris anymore.

Covered.

https://i.imgur.com/HCGdC6V.gif

Lets not dwell on this. Nothing can be done to change it anyway. I would bet every ref in the league would have called it exactly the same way. The way the rule is written they made the correct call. Sucks because the NFL has overdefined what a catch truly is.

And its been this way for a couple of years now. Anytime a catch is reviewed, it really is a crap shoot regarding what the refs are going to say coming out of the review.

Leaving it wide open for ref interpretation like that is asking to be hosed

LMAO Oh, man. Honestly, I still think that's a TD.

As soon as that ball hits his hands, he has CONTROL of it. At that point, he just has to establish POSSESSION by getting both feet down, which he does when that right foot taps the ground. He clearly maintains possession throughout that catch.

The DB rips it out after what should have already been called a TD.

From my view, he had the ball controlled with both hands with two feet down. The defender's hands were intertwined with Harris' hands and he was pulling him to the ground. The fact that he was pulling him to the ground make the "complete the process" argument null. He had complete control of the ball in the endzone.

That is my point as well, they were not fighting for it as soon as it touched his hands. He had control, put two feet down, and then the ball was ripped out. There is no question if he had immediately stepped out of bounds after the two steps it would have been ruled complete, so how is it getting ripped out after he made two steps any different?

He definitely could have made a football play except their hands were intertwined. The DB made no play to dislodge the ball until he had put two feet down

I know the point is moot, but I think it's an interesting point of discussion

Actually Romo did question it on the replay.

IMO it was worth a challenge but it was most likely not going to get overturned, ended up not needing the timeout anyway. Should have taken the FG in the first place though

3rd down call: Garbage.
Not taking the FG: Garbage.
4th down call: Garbage.
Not challenging? Yeah, Garbage.

That was a really bad sequence for Andy.

The more I watch it the more it looks like he does have possession and two feet down and it's in a controlled state

I'll admit this:

I thought it was a touchdown when I saw it. It looked like a TD that was ripped out after the fact....and I do not know, still...how this rule works. I have no clue what the proper ruling is. I have a feeling, since we didnt challenge it ...and no one made a stink over it...that it was not a TD....but thats simply a guess.

I'd love it if some of you drafturbator geniouses could enlighten me.

And, absoluetly yes. I was horrified we didnt take the 3 points and move on.

Absolutely game losing decision, right there.

You're now qualified to referee and NFL football game.

The thing that burns me is the no call for challenge. Let the Refs decide the catch, maybe they give it to us and we have a chance. Taking it away wasn't egregious, but I would waste a timeout to at least try to get 7 points, instead of lose by 6.

Can you explain the "process".

These attributes are why some of us just love the fat guy.

So is this correct? if it is ruled a score it gets automatically reviewed but if ruled not a score the coach has to challenge?

Not challenging this play is dumb. Its an extremely controversial play that you want the refs to determine the outcome of after a second look...

How can anyone be mad that Reid was aggressive and went for 7?

People kill him all prior years for being too conservative, settling for FG's, having no sense of urgency when trying to score, etc.

I love aggressive Andy.

Let's talk about Harris's catch.
 

There are times to be aggressive and times not to be. That simply was not one of them.

.. and the worst part, aside from possibly costing us this game, is it’ll likely make him more gun shy later on when it actually is smart to be aggressive.

If it's Brady to Gronk, it's a TD. Smith to Harris, not so much...

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!

Once you gain control of the ball, haven't you completed the act of the catch?

I think the reason why some people aren’t seeing a catch is because of the many times we’ve seen a defender go to the ground and lose the ball. This is a different story as Harris never went to the ground. He completed the catch and had two feet down, then the defender yanked it out.

That’s a TD.

Why did Alex throw to a man in triple coverage? Somebody had to be wide open.

It can be interpreted that since the defender had his hands where he did, Harris never fully completed or controlled the ball

Eh maybe, but I disagree.