The only translations they "cracked down" on were unauthorized ones, particularly those with "notes" which endorsed Protestant theology.
And, as this article explains, even unauthorized versions, even including Wycliffe's, were in use among English Catholics during and long after Wycliffe's time.
I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Wycliffe, which goes into considerable detail on his opinions. Translating the Bible was not high on the list of the English church's objections to Wycliffe. Nor, as is sometimes alleged, was William Tyndale condemned for translating the Bible.
So? Lots of Catholics went against the teachings of the RCC central authority. Such as Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, Johannes Gutenburg, Wessel Gansfort, and Girolamo Savonarola (all before AD 1500). Obviously if I was to quote the work of these early reformers you would say they don't represent the teachings of the RCC at the time. Likewise, your fact that some Catholics used Wycliffe's translation doesn't negate the fact that the RCC condemned translating the entire Bible in English.
Read the words of the archbishop of Centerbury at the time ( Thomas Arundel): therefore we enact and ordain that no one henceforth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or any other by way of book, pamphlet, or treatise. Nor let any such book, pamphlet, or treatise now lately composed in the time of John Wicklif aforesaid, or since, or hereafter to be composed, be read in whole or in part, in public or in private, under pain of the greater excommunication, till that translation have been approved by the diocesan of the place, or if occasion shall require, by a provincial Council. Let him that do contrary be punished in the same manner as a supporter of heresy and error
So how long was someone supposed to wait for the RCC to "approve" the Bible being translated into their language?
Or look at the decisions made in the Council of Trent (1563) (a century and a half after Wycliffe): The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal.
So even on into the 16th century, if you don't have the Bible translated into your language that's "approved" by the RCC, tough for you. Simon forbid the Bible be shown to be contrary to "sound doctrine".
Also from Trent: Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary
So reading the Bible in one's own language makes people too bold! Oh the horrors! Anyone in possession of a vernacular translation "may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary". Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! And you wonder why Solar Scriptura is so important to Protestants?