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.