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 Hammock Parties

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.

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

[The Franchise]

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.

[kevonm]

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

[O.city]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

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.

I dunno

That was a pretty damn fine effort from Harris

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by O.city

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.

[Dartgod]

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?

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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

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.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by O.city

I dunno

That was a pretty damn fine effort from Harris

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.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

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?

Covered.

[007]

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.

[TimBone]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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

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.

[Easy 6]

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

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

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

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.

[kepp]

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.

[kevonm]

Originally Posted by kepp

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