Posted this on another thread but thought it relevant here, with a couple of changes based on previous comments.
Yes, it is similar to the tuck rule game in that it was a controversial call (i.e., game changing) that some people acknowledged followed the written rule but should not have been called anyway (to me, a curious position to have. What is the NFL, or any organized sport, without strict rules and an adherence to them? What is this, the NBA?). The difference, to me, is that the tuck rule was an obscure provision that most people did not know about (at the time I thought the fumble call was going to be overturned as an incomplete pass because TB's arm was moving forward) so it was abnormal and confused people, but the rule for a catch requiring the ball to be controlled to the ground is a pretty normal, commonplace provision that is invoked all the time.
In this instance, the ball clearly rotated when James slammed it on the ground in the end zone - the only thing that could have caused that rotation was the ground, and you can see that he momentarily lost then regained hold of the ball. To me, the only question was if him putting his knee down before twisting around and putting it on the ground somehow interrupted his fall to the ground. It's pretty clear it did not, but was part of the act of him falling, so it wasn't a catch. The fault lies with the receiver, who afterwards was quoted as saying he didn't realize it wasn't a catch. He certainly knew that the ball rolled around a little when he hit the ground with it, so James's fault was 1) not maintaining control of the football all the way to the ground and 2) not knowing the rules specific to his position. He was simply trying too hard and ruined the play by doing so, a not infrequent occurence in the NFL.
Redefining "football move" to allow a receiver to lunge for the end zone or first down is a bad idea. The idea of "football move" is that it conclusively shows that the receiver established control. Lunging for the end zone has nothing to do with whether the ball is in control. In fact, it would basically allow for a more undisciplined standard for a receiver, saying, hey it's ok you didn't have full control of the football, you scored man. Now, if the league wants to increase scoring, offense, etc., fine, but not to clarify whether a ball is caught or not.
Like I said before, acknowledging that a call followed a rule but should not have been called anyway is an untenable position, It is based upon emotion and subjectivity and can't be taken seriously. And to say that the rules committee will change it after the season is ridiculous as well. Change it to what? That a receiver can let a thrown ball roll around on the ground and still call it a catch? Ordinarily, it is a no brainer, the only difference here is that his knee hit ground first and he broke the plain before putting the ball on the ground. Close calls shouldn't be the reason to change or not correctly call rules, and on replay, it appears this wasn't that much of a close call. As the official said, the knee and breaking the plain have nothing to do with him controlling ball to ground. It's just that the Steelers lost a close one in a significant game and a lot of people hate the Patriots. Those aren't good reasons not to follow the rule, either.
