I thought it was the correct call . . . the defender can not be deemed to have legal possession of the ball until he comes down with two feet on the ground (remember people one can not have deemed to have possession of the ball unless you get at least two feet down, control is not relevant) . . .
the problem is that by the time the defender had his second foot hit the ground it is unclear if he had sole possession of the ball . . . when the ref cam over and saw both had possession of the ball it is simple case of joint possession . . .
the issue, altho very sad and may seem cruel to the packers, is a simple case of joint possession and tie, if you will, goes to the offense . . .
unless the packers can show clear proof of sole possession by the defender at the time his second foot hit the ground they loose . . .
we can assume all we want but we need clear proof of sole possession . . . the problem is short of that, the next clear data point on who has possession of the bal is when the refs are standing directly over the two players, saw joint possession, deemed joint possession, thus rule possession goes to offense, and hence the TD . . .
it is really very simple . . . we need to look at it step by step and walk through it and only use clear and convincing evidence which was in view of the refs and make our determination . . .
problem is there was no possession at the top of the leap as his feet was off the ground, we then have two players coming together, Tate reaching in and the next clear data point both have possession . . .
it may not seem fair to some, but the NFl is alll about what we see and not what we assume or want to see . . . its what we see clearly and then we must peace together the facts and make a rule and, in this case, not rule on possession too early and only at the point that we can cleary and that is only at the moment that the refs are stadning over the players . . .
