A critical review is presented of previous studies that have examined the use of the tau margin (tau m) in the temporal judgment of arrival in natural contexts. This body of evidence is frequently cited as providing strong support for the use of Tau m for interceptive timing. Critical flaws are demonstrated in either the analysis or interpretation of many of these studies. It is suggested that temporal control in a number of these experiments could have been effected using a relative distance estimate (zeta ratio). Results are also presented and discussed that conflict with the tau m control hypothesis. It is concluded that although the tau m hypothesis provides an appealing account of interceptive timing, its broad acceptance is unwarranted on the evidence available.