^Sorry. Let's think about this. He can't even keep his nonsensical analysis internally consistent. So, he says you need to have both feet down in order to have control. This is of course wrong and he is conflating the concepts of control and possession. But think about it, if Tate gets control by having both feet down first, why is your friend still calling it simultaneous possession? By his misapplied criteria it would just be Tate, no simultaneous possession ruling would apply, and it's a clear cut touchdown. How seriously can you take someone who can't even follow the rules that he just completely made up?
Back to control vs possession for a sec. Think about every 'going to the ground' call ever... Because that illustrates the concept very clearly. "The receiver failed to maintain control all the way to the ground therefore the pass is incomplete." A complete catch results in possession. An incomplete pass does not. An incomplete pass can and often consists of a player having control but not possession. A pass can be incomplete even if the receiver maintains control the whole time if he lands out of bounds. Control and possession are not the same thing. Read the applicable rules with that in mind, you can't defend the nonsense you parroted here.
And pass interference doesn't apply on hail marys? C'mon man. That's just stupid. What else can you really say?
article is speaking about people like your friend.
Here is an in-depth explanation about why the call was completely incorrect courtesy of PFT
. The situation that happened is specifically mentioned in the rules and referee casebook on how to apply said rules.
The real refs discussed the call and application of a rule as part of their 'stay sharp' conferences they were holding during their lockout. You can read about that here
If you can refute any of that, please do.