Let's talk about Harris's catch.

[BigRedChief]

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?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

All you need to know about how that challenge woudl have went is to look at the Jets TD getting taken off that board.

If he didn't have possession, no way did Harris.

You have to ask why not run Kelce on that route and have Harris split wide. Kelce has much better hands and burst. Much better chance of him coming down with that football.

Kelce ran the same route, just to the left. Qb rolled right.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

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

And the alternative to ref interpretation is?

Have the fans vote from the stands? Flip a coin? Write a computer algorithm?

[B_Ambuehl]

Possession in that instance is the same as a tap tap catch on the sidelines. Two feet down and control of the ball. If he were going to the ground in the process of the catch that would apply but he wasn't going to the ground. Control in that instance depends on whether the ball was moving when his 2nd foot came down. I'm not sure if we can get a closer look at the ball when that 2nd foot touches. Unless there's a clear shot that he had control and the ball wasn't moving then the officials would go with the call on the field. Good challenge, but tough to overturn based on what I see in that gif.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

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.

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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

I agree this is not the current rule. The current rule is supposed to treat a catch in the endzone the same as the field of play.

I would change this rule so that in the endzone, the moment you have control and two feet (or one knee) it is a TD.

[temper11]

Two hands on the ball. Ball does not move. Two feet down. It's a catch. It's a TD.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

Possession in that instance is the same as a tap tap catch on the sidelines. Two feet down and control of the ball.

So if this were in the middle of the field of play, two feet down, control of the ball, and an instant later the defender rips the ball out: that should be a catch and fumble?

[A Salt Weapon]

Absolutely was a TD. If that happens on the sidelines and his 3rd step was out of bounds, it’s a catch. He has complete control with both feet down, TD, not even up for discussion, if it was someone more “famous” or one of the NFL’s darlings, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because it would have been ruled a TD and upheld through replay.

Bottom line, Chiefs got ref-****ed again and no one will care.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by temper11

Two hands on the ball. Ball does not move. Two feet down. It's a catch. It's a TD.

Maybe in other football leagues, or in the football league of your imagination. in the National Football League, however, that isn't the rule.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Maybe in other football leagues, or in the football league of your imagination. in the National Football League, however, that isn't the rule.

Then what is the rule? 2 feet down, and 5 seconds of control? 10 seconds of control? What's the rule?

I've seen players catch the ball and immediately spike it. Should those be in-completions?

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by temper11

Then what is the rule? 2 feet down, and 5 seconds of control? 10 seconds of control? What's the rule?

I've seen players catch the ball and immediately spike it. Should those be in-completions?

Those would clearly be a fumble into the end zone for a touchback.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by temper11

Then what is the rule? 2 feet down, and 5 seconds of control? 10 seconds of control? What's the rule?

I've seen players catch the ball and immediately spike it. Should those be in-completions?

If they spiked it too fast, then yeah, possibly. Arguably that's exactly what happened to Megatron back when his TD was overturned.

Here's all you need (maybe), including video showing complete/incomplete catches. Note the Beckham incomplete pass in the end zone when Butler knocks it out. Starts at about 1:12. Two feet down, clear control, then Butler knocks it out a half-second later. INcomplete.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...eting-a-catch/

[temper11]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Those would clearly be a fumble into the end zone for a touchback.

A few times on those occasions I was worried about that very thing... but they weren't. Called touchdowns every-time. We are arguing subjectivity here. If he'd continued to the ground and the ground jarred the ball loose, then I'd agree, no catch. But I don't think you should be able to rip the ball out of the guys hands like that with two feet down, to save a TD.

But whatever. Moving on to next week. Chiefs played like horseshit yesterday with a bunch of back-ups and still nearly won. 5 and 1 - not much to complain about.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by temper11

A few times on those occasions I was worried about that very thing... but they weren't. Called touchdowns every-time. We are arguing subjectivity here. If he'd continued to the ground and the ground jarred the ball loose, then I'd agree, no catch. But I don't think you should be able to rip the ball out of the guys hands like that with two feet down, to save a TD.

But whatever. Moving on to next week. Chiefs played like horseshit yesterday with a bunch of back-ups and still nearly won. 5 and 1 - not much to complain about.

I'm assuming he's actually joking, based on teh Pats/Jets play. Here, that kind of play in the end zone can ONLY be a TD or an incomplete pass. A fumble/touchback is impossible because if the catch is complete, the play is immediately dead. There is no opportunity to fumble.

See the link I posted. The Butler strip of OBJ a half-second after the "catch". That's incomplete, and has been consistently called that way for quite a while now.

[Shag]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

If they spiked it too fast, then yeah, possibly. Arguably that's exactly what happened to Megatron back when his TD was overturned.

Here's all you need (maybe), including video showing complete/incomplete catches. Note the Beckham incomplete pass in the end zone when Butler knocks it out. Starts at about 1:12. Two feet down, clear control, then Butler knocks it out a half-second later. INcomplete.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...eting-a-catch/

Nice find. If Eisen knows what he's talking about, then sounds like the ruling on Sunday was correct.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

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

A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

1. Is he capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent? No, he got absolutely raped on this play and it should have been pass interference on #28.

2. Is he capable of tucking the ball away? No, again because #28 was busy raping him and then momentum kept him from bringing his arms into a tuck position.

3. Is he capable of turning up field? No, again because #28 is now at his feet impeding his progress and tripping him up.

4. Is he capable of taking additional steps? Not while keeping his arms attached to both himself and the football.

So, while it may not (I guess...) be a catch by definition, the refs still blew the dogshit out of that play by not calling the rape by #28. He was all over Harris before the ball arrived and was face guarding him with his back turned to the football. That IS pass interference every day of the week. It should have been 1st and goal from the 1. The Steelers, no matter how you slice it, got a gift from the refs in this one. If you aren't going to call PI on that play, you sure as **** rule it a TD. They did neither.