“Golden Tate didn’t catch the ball”
Actually he did. We can argue who touched the ball with both hands first, but Tate did legally “catch” the ball.
“and it wasn’t simultaneous”
Actually I would agree in that Tate made the “catch” first since both his feet were down prior to the defenders feet coming down. See the NFL statement on what constitutes a “catch”. Just because a defender has the ball in his hands does not make it a catch until both his feet are down. By the time the defenders feet had come down, Tate already had partial possession of the ball and both feet down and was trying to strip the ball totally away from the defender.
“He instead caught the player who actually caught the ball just a moment previous.”
Photos prove Tate’s left hand was inside the defenders hands. He did not simply grab the defender. And again, the defender can not legally “catch” the ball until both his feet come down. Every video show Tates hands on the(ball/defender/whatever you want to say) PRIOR to the defenders feet being on the ground.
“He likewise did not control the ball. ‘Control’ means what we both know it means.”
It doesn’t matter what we think it means. It only matters what the NFL says it means. Its their rules and definitions. By their rules, it was a touchdown. The play was reviewed-still a touchdown. Reviewed again by the NFL itself-still a touchdown and correct call on that aspect. (they blew the pass interference though)
Photos prove that Tate 'caught' Jennings and momentarily had his hand on the ball, then lost it. On his weak side, he dropped the arm from any presumed contact with the ball to make contact with the ground as they fell. The other arm was not on the ball, but horse-collaring Jennings. That's not 'control' and would be ruled an incomplete reception, but somehow Tate gets the touchdown because he was seen briefly touching a ball he could have never caught and possessed. The fact remains that only Jennings maintained complete possession and control of the ball. The last thing you're missing is that the booth reviewers cannot overturn the ruling on the field under the circumstances. That's not the same as assent, it's an obligation.
In short, the NFL just invented their reasoning for why the ruling stands. For obvious political reasons, naturally, during the referee lockout. They have to call an end to the furor, even if they know they're absolutely wrong and their explanation is pure fantasy. Positively medieval Catholic.
Stand your ground if you choose; that's your prerogative. No sports fan outside of a fraction of Seattle fans and players agree with you. The NFL's explanation didn't make anyone say 'Oooohh. Now we see. Thanks for setting us straight NFL.' If you just want to be contrary because it's hip to be contrary, then that's different -- but you're going to find that you're the odd man out for the rest of your life taking the opposing viewpoint on this incident whenever historic sports trivia is the subject.