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