Tate catch makes the NFL look like a complete joke

[Zekeats]

nuff said

 

[StarBoyz83]

That was a weird play. But I think it was a good call. He had it for a while in the endzone before he fumbled it.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think this is probably the worst one so far this season because it doesn't even involve the player going to the ground as he lost control before he started falling over the guy at his feet. Tate didn't satisfy the requirements for a catch so it should have been an interception.

There's no way anyone can possibly say that Tate had the ball long enough after his second foot comes down to demonstrate that he is a runner.

 

[Nova]

I think this is probably the worst one so far this season because it doesn't even involve the player going to the ground as he lost control before he started falling over the guy at his feet. Tate didn't satisfy the requirements for a catch so it should have been an interception.

There's no way anyone can possibly say that Tate had the ball long enough after his second foot comes down to demonstrate that he is a runner.

Yeah this certainly is not a catch by the definition of the rule, even in its ambiguity.

The Calvin johnson original play was more obviously a catch than this.

If this happened anywhere else and the ball hit the ground, it would have been considered an incompletion. Hell, we saw this with Miles against the Browns in 2012.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

As someone who believed that the Dez call was consistent with the Calvin Johnson play (actually happened to Johnson twice) and then believed that the Freeman TD call back last week was correct, I have to say that this Tate play is incorrect.

 

[Hoofbite]

As someone who believed that the Dez call was consistent with the Calvin Johnson play (actually happened to Johnson twice) and then believed that the Freeman TD call back last week was correct, I have to say that this Tate play is incorrect.

Same boat.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Same boat.

yea, Mike Pereira was surprised they over turned it and said it should have been an interception, but his rationale was Tate was not going to the ground, so that part of the rule does not apply. He did again, say he did not "clearly establish himself" as a runner.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I gave up trying to figure out what is and isn't a catch any more. It's clear to me the refs are going to do what they want and then find a way to justify it. So show me the replay and lets on with the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

How can someone in the endzone establish themselves as a runner? They can't advance the ball. It's all subjective. The requirements of a catch are not clear.