You call it!!

[ThatGuyRyan]

The ball started moving before his third step which would have 'established himself as a runner'. That's what that dickhead VP of officiating said and I agree, so the interception should have stood. No idea why it was overturned. Oh well.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Established as a runner, 2nd foot down. does he have possession?????

By the rules he has established control, has two feet down, and has not crossed the plain of the end zone. He is not falling to the ground during the process of making the catch, a fact 99% of the people can't comprehend. The fact he began to fall immediately after the catch was due to the fact fuller was tackling him, and it was not part of the "process" of the catch. At least this is the way the revue both seen it, it could have gone either way. The problem here is due to the bam-bam nature of the play, it doesn't pass the eye ball test. '

The real problem isn't with whether or not this was a catch, but rather the total lack of any consistency in these calls.

 

[SUPERFAN]

If you don't know these refs are influencing the outcomes of these games your a roger goodell fanboy

 

[mecha]

I'll have to watch it again but it looked like a catch with no control in my sleep deprived state. in which case that's an interception right? **** Golden Tate

 

[Larsonite]

The problem is that there isn't any defining aspect to catching the ball once it moves. Ie. Going to the ground, juggling, crossing the goal line or side line, etc. The nfl did this to themselves trying to over define what a catch is. If it looks like a duck, don't **** it. I'm out!

Sent from a spaghetti monster circling the earth