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?

[Amnorix]

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.

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

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Cochise

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

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.

[Buckweath]

Clearly not a catch in my view. Not even worth a challenge.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

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.

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?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by O.city

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

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.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by nbarone007

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...

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

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?

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

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

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.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

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

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by O.city

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.

[gblowfish]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

Not trying to be a dick either, but heaven forbid the Pats get any help from the refs.....

Like the tuck rule....

[Warrick]

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?

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Not trying to be a dick either, but heaven forbid the Pats get any help from the refs.....

Like the tuck rule....

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").

[11Chiefs]

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!