The problem was he didn't have clear possession of the pass as he was starting to hit the goal line.

A metric **** tonne of THIS

IMO, he caught the ball, took 3 steps (one out of bounds) before going to the ground. I also feel he made a football move and it should have counted. How many steps does it take before it is considered a catch?

Ehhh......I'd argue that he did....but theres no point in arguing. It's a dumb ****ing rule.

The rule should be changed to "a fumble is a fumble" no matter if it has crossed the goal line or not. If you fumble in the end zone and another team recovers, it's a touchback.
If you fumble in the end zone and the ball goes out of the end zone.... place the ball back at the 1 yard line or something.

Agreed. If they're saying the play is over the instant the ball crosses the goal line, then this is a touchdown.

Maybe they should go back to the old rules where you have to touch the ball to the turf while you're holding it. I always thought that looked cool in the old clips, and it would definitely be my touchdown celebration if I was a pro player. Great nod to the history of the game.

I agree completely, the rule is dumb as shit.

No. You need to establish possession. To establish possession on a catch requires control of the ball and a football move, or all the way to the ground etc. Otherwise, a 10th of a second "catch" that is knocked out of the receiver's hands is a TD.

That's the difference between a player who has established possession before he hits the goal line (receiver who previously established possession and is running down the field, or a RB who takes the handoff) and a player who is still working to establish possession on the "catch".

Because as soon as the ball touches the goal line, the play is over and it's a TD, but I do agree that the receiving rules are stupid. IMO, if you catch the ball, establish possession with 2 feet in bounds, it shouldn't matter if you fall down afterwards and lose the ball after hitting the ground.

But in reeruned rules sense, it could be argued that he didn't have complete control of the football as he was crossing the goal line since he was shifting it from one hand to the other. In that case, since he didn't have clear possession as the ball was crossing the line, he'd have to maintain possession all the way through.

This is one of those wonderful "completion of the process" situations.

Nah, the second the ball touches the goal line, the play is over. Touchdown.

What i dont understand though, is the fact that once the player caught the ball, two feet in, football move, touched by an opposing player, across the plane, goes out of bounds, then the ground causes the ball to come loose... how is that not ruled

a) a td
b) a touchback

how is it incomplete?

It should be a TD. It was clear he possessed the ball with 2 feet inbounds.

It couldn't be a touchback, because in order for that to happen the receiver would have needed to have possession of the ball and fumble it before crossing the goal line, and the ball would have needed to go into the end zone and out of bounds. In this case, they're saying he never had possession, so no fumble. If they said he had possession, it would have been a TD because he crossed the goal line with possession.

Catch! Definitely a catch. Cinci got screwed. Basically, the refs made the wrong call for Detroit couple years ago so now they have to continue to make the wrong call to stay consistent.

Yep, and if they gave the Bengals that Gresham TD, they would have just needed a FG to tie at the end there, and they were well in range. NFL rules are just awful now.