“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.
“In the act” is the problem here. In the catch-act was OVER (already a FACT) as a RECEIVER. ACT-FACT is the key
Furthermore, reviewing his foot had already TOUCHED GROUND.
Now, they are trying to use the cover “process common to the game”.
if so, the ruling should never been reversed.
Correct, he had already caught the ball and had control when it hit the ground after his knee had touched. Ball touches the ground, play over. The ground does not cause a fumble.
The NFL always considers guys falling to the ground at the time of a catch like that as “in the act”. Nothing new there.
Yup. NFL = WWF. No insult intended to the WWF.
Yes, as I saw it, he caught the ball, then held it in one hand and stretched for the end zone. I don’t see why this wasn’t a “football move” made after the catch. It seemed clear that it was.