2 of 4 make the title match the question; clarify cite

How could Rav be disproved?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 37, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?