If the answer to either question is "yes," the TD call was correct. Further, because a TD was the call on the field, it could only be reversed if the replay showed incontrovertible proof the answer to both questions is "no." I just do not see any convincing argument for that.


No, my position is that possession is simultaneous (and goes to the receiver by rule) if they both grab it at the same time, and that the receiver does need both hands on the ball to accomplish that. HOWEVER, even if that is not the case, and the defender has uncontested possession, the receiver may still strip him and gain uncontested possession himself until/unless the defender is ruled down.


Because the call on the field was a TD, the burden of proof is to demonstrate Tate did NOT have possession of the ball, not to prove he did. Granted, I have only seen online video, but when doing so it looks to me like Tates right hand is over Jennings arm and on the BALL at the point of Jennings reception, evidence for simultaneous possession. Shortly thereafter he appears to get his left hand on the ball as well, though I am aware of no NFL rule requiring a receiver possess a ball with both hands (and one handed catches are, though unusual far from unheard of.)

However (and once again,) even if Jennings had uncontested possession, Tate could still have stripped him and gained uncontested possession himself until/unless Jennings was down. The pictures and videos I have seen do not show anything but Jennings' feet on the ground; the rest of his body is either on Tate (not the ground) or not visible. Since a player is only down by contact when any part of their body except feet or hands touch the ground, there is no way to definitively say Jennings was down, and Tate could have legally stripped him and gained uncontested possession even if he never previously had contested possession.

Live action, I would almost certainly have called that simultaneous possession and a TD; again, the refs on the field do not have the benefit of slo mo replays, zooms and stills to aid them in making that call. At game speed there is NO way you can tell me you could have said with certainty that was not a simultaneous catch. And in that situation, once a call—ANY call—is made it is impossible to overturn; there is simply no incontrovertible evidence with which to do so. That play demonstrates the importance of refs who know and apply the rules well, not because those refs did not, but because they DID yet their many less competent critics THINK they did not.

It may be the worst thing to happen to the WI GOP since Joe McCarthy though, which gives me a great deal of guilty amusement. Ultimately, there is a world of difference between public employee unions who have several remedies against imperious management (the ballot box chief among them) and private unions who do not. However, that is being completely lost in ridicule of Walker and Ryans past attacks on public unions juxtaposed with their support of the referees union now that the strike has harmed Wisconsins home team. On the other hand, it is not as if the WI GOP is exactly cozy with private unions either, so the ridicule is mostly deserved even if not because of the specific anti-public union law Walker signed. The best part was Ryans Through the Looking Glass argument Obama cost GB the game.