had access to. As I said before, I agreed with them during the game that there was not sufficient evidence to overturn it.

Now that we can see a portion of the ball visibly sitting on the turf and not under Robinson's hand, it was in fact, not a valid interception.

Again I don't have an angle, I'm not seeking any validation for any previous claims, just pointing out what actually happened on the play, based on what I'm seeing in this image, which appears to be irrefutable and conclusive to me.

Honestly, it just feels like you enjoy arguing over nothing, and I don't even know why you have this level of aggression towards what I am posting. You seem to be bothered by my use of words like "looks like", or "appears" as if it's not normal to use those phrases when describing something you are seeing in an image.