Whether the ball was trapped against the ground, bounced a tiny bit off the ground, or never touched the ground--that's beside the point, really. It was close enough that an ump in real time could very well judge it to have made contact with the ground. It's a judgment call, and that's that.
But what matters is the actions--and non-actions--of the ump. How many hand signals did he make? How did he make them? What do they mean? How did they in this instance compare with how he ordinarily makes hand signals? Those are the key questions and what we should be seeing on replays.
And perhaps most important of all is what the ump did not do: HE NEVER VERBALLY, VOCALLY, CALLED THE MAN OUT. Play continues.
Now should they ump have said, and does he normally say, "No catch," when the ball touches the ground? I don't know.
And if--IF--his hand signals created a confusing "cognitive dissonance," then he's at least partially at fault. But I'm not sure they did. Tell me if this is correct: He made two hand/arm gestures. First, an outstretched arm, meaning no bat contact. Second, a clenched fist, meaning strike. Is that correct, or were there more than those two gestures? (I don't have cable, so I can't watch ESPN for a thousand replays.)
Remember, the hand signal for out is not just a clenched fist (which means strike), but a clenched fist accompanied by a short hammered motion, a pumping action. Was that there or not?
Finally, catcher Paul himself has admitted that he never heard the ump SAY, "Out." The catcher never saw the ump's hand signals anyway; he's facing out toward the field. And he rolled the ball away before the clenched fist, too. He should have waited for a verbalized out call.
This is a very good point.
I agree with most of what you say. I would add at the end he should have tagged the batter or thrown to first in the absence of call.