During Sunday's game against the Bears, Lions receiver Golden Tate caught a pass and then had the ball pop up into the air and into the arms of Bears linebacker Jonathan Anderson. Officials initially called it an interception and a touchback. Under further review, things became complicated.
When the officials came back from review they ruled the play a touchdown and NFL fans collectively lost their minds. How is this possibly a catch when everything we've seen so far indicates it would not have been a catch?
MORE: Best of Week 6 | Worst of Week 6
Let's take a closer look at the play in question.
On the slow-motion replay, you can see Tate catches the ball, plants two feet down as he crosses the goal line and before his third step the ball is ripped loose by Kyle Fuller. Anderson then locates the ball, catches it and goes down for Chicago.
People were quick to bring up Dez Byrant's non-catch from last year's playoff game and Calvin Johnson's non-catch from 2010. But comparing those plays to Tate's play is unfair because they are not the same rule.
In addition, the Tate play should not be compared to the Devonta Freeman play from a week ago or the Tyler Eifert play from Week 3. However you view these plays, they all involve the player with the football going to the ground as he makes the catch. Tate was not going to the ground when he made the play.
"The key question in plays like this is the element of time," NFL spokesman Michael Signora wrote in an email to Omnisport. "Does the player have the ball long enough to become a runner. In the case of Tate yesterday, if that had happened in the field of play, it would have been an interception if the defense caught the ball in the air. If it had hit the ground, it would have been a fumble. It's not a fumble in the end zone because when you become a runner in your opponent's end zone, it's a touchdown."
Fair enough.
But then why was this play by Rueben Randle from Week 4 of 2014 against Washington ruled as an interception?
Signora, who verified his comments with NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino, declined to comment on the disparity between the rulings. Watching both plays, there's an obvious similarity between them. Both players catch the ball in the end zone and take two steps before having the ball dislodged.
At the time, former NFL referee and CBS rule analyst Mike Carey said Randle's catch was not a touchdown because "there wasn't enough time for the receiver to complete a football move."
If you go by that ruling then Tate's catch was not a touchdown because he did not make a "football move." He took two steps and was losing the ball shortly after his second foot came down. He clearly did not have enough time to do anything else.
There have already been multiple questionable calls regarding catches this season and it will continue as long as the NFL remains inconsistent with how it interprets receptions. As for the future, Signora said the league will look into these issues during the offseason.
"The Competition Committee looks at plays like this every single year, so you can expect that to continue," he said.
