[ScareCrowe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

The first image shows Kelce with possession and one foot down, satisfying A and partial B (1 foot).

Second image shows Kelce with his second foot down and the ball tucked, satisfying the latter half of B (both feet) and a partial of C (tuck the ball away).

The last image, you can't see his left foot, but it hits the ground at pretty much the exact instant that the ball is knocked out of his hands.

At that point, you can argue that he'd secured possession of the ball, had both feet down, tucked the ball, and taken a third step. By rule, all of that could constitute a catch, hence the controversy.

in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

The rule clearly states that (a) & (b) have to happen before (c). Therefore the tuck can't be considered a "football move" if it happens before or even simultaneous to his feet coming down with control. In your 2nd pic I'm not even 100% sure his right foot is down yet & the ball is already tucked. With that being the case he still would have to make a football move, like a 3rd step, but the ball is out before he can.