Originally Posted by broncocalijohn
But isnt that rule when you catch it inside the endzone? Since he caught it outside the inside and was running or falling to the goalline, once it crosses that goalline, play is over. I believe that is why they called it like they did. It is a different scenario from being outside the endzone to catching a ball inside the endzone. He had possesion when he crossed the goalline.
Check out the article that I posted a link to a couple pages back. It was called (after the CJ ruling a few years ago) that a second motion (in this case extending the ball) would complete the catch but it was later clarified by the NFL that it was not the case and nothing negates the necessity to hold onto the football while falling. This also was the case within the last two weeks on a play (I wanna say a Thursday game as I recall Mayock incorrectly predicting the results) where a player caught the ball then stepped out of bounds then went to the ground and lost the ball. Mayock said the completion of the catch (which he'd established) then touching the line should have ended the play immediately so the going to the ground shouldn't matter. In the end, it was ruled that even though the play ended when he touched the line, going to the ground afterward dislodged the ball so it was incomplete.
The NFL need to go with the guys in a bar rule on completions.