Originally Posted by Archie
That is a bad example of his logic. The point is that it has to be a catch before it can be a touchdown. If it is not a catch then it's not a touchdown. His point is that he doubted it would have been ruled a catch at the 50.
He had possession of the ball after the catch.
You don't need to secure anything after it crosses the goal line as long as you have possession of the ball.
Just like my example of a fumble ---
Doesn't matter if it gets knocked out a second after it crosses the goal line -- it crossed the goal line with possession.