It was another great day overall for top Bears unextended wide receiver Allen Robinson, but it could’ve been even better.
With the Bears having made the switch to Nick Foles in the third quarter, and a drive underway, Foles threw a back-shoulder to Robinson in the end zone for what was initially called a touchdown:
https://twitter.com/AtlantaFalcons/status/1310295839647182848
— [C] (@tym2g3thi) September 27, 2020
After a replay review, the call was overturned, an interception was awarded, and the touchdown was taken off the board. Bears fans were … eh hem … disappointed.
And Robinson put it even better (Sun-Times): “I think it was bullshit to take away my touchdown,” Robinson said.” Simple … being in this league seven years now, you know when you have possession of the ball, you touch down in the endzone, you hit the ground and maintain possession, for somebody to roll over and gain possession, you know what I’m saying, based on leverage, on thinking that the play was over.”
What’s confusing about the overturn is that, at most, you’re talking about simultaneous possession when both players come down – in the end zone – and since simultaneous possession goes to the offensive player, that’s a touchdown. So how then do you not only get that wrong, but decide to OVERTURN the call based on clear and convincing evidence?
Well, here’s the NFL’s explanation:
More from Riveron: pic.twitter.com/NEvzgkE1FO
— Zack Pearson (@Zack_Pearson) September 28, 2020
So, what the league is saying is that, even if both players have possession and are down in the end zone, the receiver still has to complete the process of the catch … but if they’re simultaneously possessing it, that means he … what, has to hold onto the ball forever? Think about how ridiculous that explanation is: the league is nullifying their own simultaneous possession rule if they are requiring the offensive player to “complete the process of the catch” more than going to the ground tied with the ball. You have to affirmatively take the ball away? Or what? You *know* that’s not what you actually mean to say here.
You screwed up with your overturn, or you screwed up with your explanation here – and I think it was both. Either Robinson never had any kind of possession, or he had possession in the air and the defender gained possession in the air, or he had possession and came down tied with the defender with the ball. It’s gotta be one of those things, and if it’s not one of the first two, then it’s a touchdown and should’ve stood as a touchdown. And since there’s no way you can look at those replays and say there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence that Robinson never had possession or lost possession in the air, the call is not supposed to be overturned.