What is a catch? Even players are confused.

[Fred in Lynn]

 
 
 
The back and forth on if he had already established control with post catch football move(s) is well trod up above, so nothing to add there.  But I'll just add it doesn't make sense to me that in a league where "ground can't cause a fumble while being tackled" this is part of a rule. If a guy has caught the ball, as everyone seems to agree occurred, why should the ground jarring it loose matter if it doesn't matter on a fumble? I think that's part of the cognitive dissonance here -- not just that Dez clearly catches and even transfers the ball with full control while making football moves, but that the NFL seems to treat the effect of hitting the ground in very different/contradictory ways.

Two different possession scenarios, Tony. With a fumble, the player has established possession of the ball, whereas with a catch that is what is being determined.

Somebody figure out where between initial contact and dissociation with the ball possession occurs so we can close out this thread. I kid. It's quality conversation.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
The back and forth on if he had already established control with post catch football move(s) is well trod up above, so nothing to add there.  But I'll just add it doesn't make sense to me that in a league where "ground can't cause a fumble while being tackled" this is part of a rule. If a guy has caught the ball, as everyone seems to agree occurred, why should the ground jarring it loose matter if it doesn't matter on a fumble? I think that's part of the cognitive dissonance here -- not just that Dez clearly catches and even transfers the ball with full control while making football moves, but that the NFL seems to treat the effect of hitting the ground in very different/contradictory ways.

They're not analogous situations.
 
In the case of the fumble (or non-fumble, as the case may be), the player with possession of the ball is simply down, causing the play to be dead.  That is why the ground cannot cause a fumble; there's actually no such rule.  The play is simply dead when the player being tackled hits the ground.  
 
In the case of the catch, the rule is probably there for player safety and to make it objectively easier to determine if a catch has been made when a player is going to the ground.  Most such situations are not as controversial as this one.  In many cases, it's obvious that the player never had possession when he fell to the ground.  
 
In the first case, the player had possession prior to the play in question; in the second, the receiver never had possession.  

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

They're not analogous situations.
 
In the case of the fumble (or non-fumble, as the case may be), the player with possession of the ball is simply down, causing the play to be dead.  That is why the ground cannot cause a fumble; there's actually no such rule.  The play is simply dead when the player being tackled hits the ground.  

 
Good explanation.  And good example of how colloquialisms like "the ground cannot cause a fumble" sometimes can be more confusing than helpful.
 
Viewed through the lens of what constitutes a fumble, the going to ground rule seems even more different when you consider the end zone scenario.  There is no such thing as a fumble in the end zone (the offensive end zone, that is).  Up, down, on the ground, not on the ground, it doesn't matter.  The instant you have possession of the ball in the end zone, the play is over and so there cannot be a fumble.  We see this most often when a player sticks his hand out over the goal line and the ball gets slapped away the instant after it crosses.  TD.  It makes the going to the ground rule in the end zone -- where a player must basically catch, get both feet down, make a football move, and maintain control throughout the entire contact with the ground -- seem like a much more elaborate requirement.  But, your explanation makes the difference -- in the first case, the runner had possession of the ball, whereas possession isn't established until all those other things are accomplished in a going to the ground situation.

 

[yep]

...Just the existence of such a fervent debate is proof it's not indisputable...

Does the NFL have a rule clarifying whether "indisputable" means the same thing as "impossible to debate"? 
 
Because I'll bet someone will dispute your definition of indisputable...

 

[Fred in Lynn]

When a receiver catches the ball, takes two steps, and goes to the ground and ball comes out- is that a completion?
What about three steps? Four steps? Ten steps? At some point, going to the ground *does not apply*.

If he catches the ball then it's a catch. You're making this unnecessarily circular. The rule implies a hierarchy in cases where the receiver is GtG (can't type it any longer) in the process of attempting to making a catch. If he doesn't GtG, then he needs two feet down.

Making an act common to the game is what changes the play so going to the ground goes out the window.

If this is an interpretation of how the rule is applied, then it's incorrect. If it's your opinion of what happened, then I disagree. Not seeing a clear indication of a catch given the existence of Item 1.

As someone said above, the whole reason for the rule is to reduce fumbles by receivers. You can't change the rule without increasing the number of fumbles as receivers catch the ball then drop it later. So the rule is a compromise to limit judgment calls while reducing fumbles. I doubt any better tradeoff will be found, so this rule is not going to get changed.

Or prevent crediting receivers for balls they barely possessed, stretching the context of a catch in the opposite direction. I'm skeptical that there's greener grass across the fence. There has to be a somewhat arbitrary line drawn somewhere, and I'm not seeing the strikingly better alternative.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Does the NFL have a rule clarifying whether "indisputable" means the same thing as "impossible to debate"? 
 
Because I'll bet someone will dispute your definition of indisputable...

In this article from a month ago, Blandino (NFL VP of Officiating) implies "indisputable" requires "clear and obvious" evidence that the call should be overturned:
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/152685/inside-slant-nfl-replay-reversals-drop-amid-new-interpretation-for-indisputable
 
The article writer also states that a "hint of doubt" prevents reversal.
 
Applying it to the situation at hand, and accepting the position stated repeatedly above that going to the ground trumps attempting a football move, the referee must have concluded that it was clear and obvious that the receiver was going to the ground before any football move was attempted.  Furthermore, it was also clear and obvious that he did not maintain control of the ball until the entire process is complete (I suppose this means everything - receiver and ball - is at rest, or the receiver gets off the ground).  
 
Unless you dispute the rule interpretation itself, I no longer see a viable argument against reversal.  But the rule interpretation is not something subject to the indisputable standard - as a lawyer would say, it's a question of law, not fact.  You don't have to prove the law beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone - the law is what the judge (or ref) says it is, especially where, as here, there's not a chance for a further appeal.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

You guys do realize Blandino and Steratore were on the review. He was the review head in NY during the game.

 

[crystalline]

 
That's it.  Was there a catch prior to the moment at which he began going to ground or wasn't there a catch prior to going to ground?  That's the inquiry.  For there have been a catch before he began going to ground, he would have had to have possession, both feet down, and have made an act "common to the game" before he started the process of going to the ground.  
 
In the replay, it seems very clear to me that he started to fall to the ground as his second foot hits the turf, if not earlier.  Accordingly, there can not have been a catch prior to the point at which he began going to the ground.  He was, thus, in the "act of catching a pass" at the time he started to go to ground.  The end.

 
Thank you for this summary.  I apologize for slight snarkiness above in response to the assertion that the answers were entirely in the rulebook.  Your bolded outlines the judgement call people are debating.
 
 
The horse is very close to his last breath, but this video is worth watching.  It's Blandino showing an example of a catch prior to going to ground:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Start around 2:25.  Thomas makes a catch and takes two steps, then bangs the ball down in the endzone for an upheld touchdown.   
 
I lean towards "not a catch" for Bryant but there's room to debate the refs' judgement.
 
Bottom line of course is that he should have been coached to secure the ball and fall down.  Reaching is a bad idea in that situation.

 

[lexrageorge]

OK, I'll bite on attempting some hypotheticals in a lame attempt to clarify the confusion:
 
a.) Dez Bryant makes leaping or lunging catch, and immediately after the ball is in his hands he falls to the ground, thereby completing his leap or lunge.  The ball never leaves his hands, never touches the ground.  The defender lays a hand on him.  Bryant never had a chance to make a "football move" in that case, as he was down by contact once he landed after catching the ball.  However, the "going to the ground" rule applies, and it is therefore ruled a catch.  We see this play on the ESPN highlight reels at least once a weekend during the regular season.  
 
b.) Same leaping catch, ball pops out when Bryant hits the ground.  Incomplete pass.  Something seen fairly regularly during the course of a season. 
 
c.) Bryant makes a standing catch, but is instantly hit as the ball reaches his hands, thereby jarring the ball lose before he's able to make any "football move".  Ruling is incomplete pass.   We see this nearly every game. 
 
d.) Bryant makes standing catch, takes a step with the ball clearly in his control, and his then hit, jarring the ball lose.  Technically a fumble; he was clearly in position to make a "football move" when he advanced it one step.  There's actually no requirement that he take that step; he could have just stood there for a second or two admiring the ball in his hands.  Either way, a fumble.   
 
I don't believe any of the above situations are conflicting, or controversial.  The problem is that in this game we have situation (e), where Bryant is going to the ground while also taking steps with the ball in his hand.  The "going to the ground" rule does apply.  If the official on the field got it wrong, and the replay shows that Bryant is going to the ground, then the overturn is the correct call. 
 
To me, the only question that should be up to debate is whether Bryant was truly "going to the ground" when he caught the ball.  The overwhelming consensus of the NFL folks is that he was indeed going to the ground when he caught the ball.  However, there will be some that will disagree; such is life. 
 
The problem with changing the rule so that Bryant's catch is a catch is that the rule would still have to take into account the 4 routine situations above.  And rule changes have to be objective.  Saying that something that is a catch in the school yard should be a catch in the NFL, or the rule must take into account the athletic abilities of a Dez Bryant, is not objective.  

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
d.) Bryant makes standing catch, takes a step with the ball clearly in his control, and his then hit, jarring the ball lose.  Technically a fumble; he was clearly in position to make a "football move" when he advanced it one step.  There's actually no requirement that he take that step; he could have just stood there for a second or two admiring the ball in his hands.  Either way, a fumble.   
 

I'm not sure about the second part of this (version without step) - I feel like I've seen cases where there was some time between catch and hit/dislodging the ball that were called incomplete without the receiver going down.  I can't remember any specific instances, unfortunately.  
 
But more generally,  isn't the rule that if the ball comes out, it's incomplete unless there was a football move or an attempt at one?  Doing nothing (or admiring the ball in his hands as you put it) is not even an attempt at a football move, so I think I disagree with you here.  If he tucked it or something, then sure, the catch is complete and it's a fumble.  

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I'm not sure about the second part of this (version without step) - I feel like I've seen cases where there was some time between catch and hit/dislodging the ball that were called incomplete without the receiver going down.  I can't remember any specific instances, unfortunately.  
 
But more generally,  isn't the rule that if the ball comes out, it's incomplete unless there was a football move or an attempt at one?  Doing nothing (or admiring the ball in his hands as you put it) is not even an attempt at a football move, so I think I disagree with you here.  If he tucked it or something, then sure, the catch is complete and it's a fumble.

Go back to post 123 which is the rule. Note 1 says that a football move is not required, just that enough time has passed to make one.

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm not sure about the second part of this (version without step) - I feel like I've seen cases where there was some time between catch and hit/dislodging the ball that were called incomplete without the receiver going down.  I can't remember any specific instances, unfortunately.  
 
But more generally,  isn't the rule that if the ball comes out, it's incomplete unless there was a football move or an attempt at one?  Doing nothing (or admiring the ball in his hands as you put it) is not even an attempt at a football move, so I think I disagree with you here.  If he tucked it or something, then sure, the catch is complete and it's a fumble.  

From the rulebook:
 
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).
 
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 
 
Granted, it's not a play you are likely to see (player just standing there admiring the ball in his hands before getting hit); I just used that as a hypothetical to show that there's no actual requirement for the receiver to do anything after catching the ball.  Typically, the player would be either moving forward, avoiding a tackle, stepping out of bounds, or getting tackled right away.  The first 3 would be catches; the last case would nearly always be ruled incomplete if the ball leaves his hands as he's being tackled.  
 
And, sure, as you said, if he tucked the ball before making his "football move", and got hit and lost the ball, it would be a fumble (a more likely scenario that the one I initially provided, but still uncommon).  

 

[John DiFool]

The horse is very close to his last breath, but this video is worth watching.  It's Blandino showing an example of a catch prior to going to ground:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Start around 2:25.  Thomas makes a catch and takes two steps, then bangs the ball down in the endzone for an upheld touchdown.   
 
I lean towards "not a catch" for Bryant but there's room to debate the refs' judgement.
 
Bottom line of course is that he should have been coached to secure the ball and fall down.  Reaching is a bad idea in that situation.
 

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 
 
Granted, it's not a play you are likely to see (player just standing there admiring the ball in his hands before getting hit); I just used that as a hypothetical to show that there's no actual requirement for the receiver to do anything after catching the ball.  Typically, the player would be either moving forward, avoiding a tackle, stepping out of bounds, or getting tackled right away.  The first 3 would be catches; the last case would nearly always be ruled incomplete if the ball leaves his hands as he's being tackled.  
 
 

 
[Been discussing this in two other fora, thought I'd add my 2 pence here]
I watched both catches, and (sorry, to lexra) apparently there is a de facto requirement here for a player to do something to "sell" the catch to the refs.  Thus a dangerous inconsistency then exists, in that, to ensure that your catch isn't nullified by the ground causing the ball to come loose, that the receiver is virtually forced to do something "extra", in a very obvious and unmistakable way, above and beyond the usual, to get the officials to give him credit for the catch, even if the same amount of time elapsed in both scenarios, if the number of steps involved is the same, etc.  If he has an opportunity to make such a move, and doesn't, well, he's just hosed himself, and his team, even (or especially) if in the end said move is completely unnecessary.
 
In the clips, Johnson didn't try anything else (and why should he?), Thomas did, the latter gets a TD, the former doesn't.  And that is what stinks to High Hades here about the whole thing.  The NFL abjectly refuses to define what the period of time/distance traveled needs to be before a catch incontrovertily becomes a catch, and that just ain't TF right.
 
If you don't find something terribly wrong at the core with such a rule, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[yep]

I have been trying to think of a way to summarize this dispute, using sub one to indicate a plain-english understanding of the meaning of a word (like this1), and sub two to indicate NFL rulebookese meaning of a word (like this2), when it comes to terms like "catch", "steps", "going to ground", "football move", etc. 
 
What I have come up with is this: the rules to a game should not require lawyers. It's okay to have some specialized lingo like "completed pass", but it ought to mean something that can be explained to a room full of sane people in a way that they will understand and agree upon, without needing a library full of precedent and context-dependent jargon. 
 
My favorite example, in this thread, is the rule for resolving disputes over what constitutes "indisputable". The NFL is seriously moving into territory where it should start issuing law degrees if they need to define the meaning of "indisputable". God knows their industry and talent-pool is big enough to support a lawyer-class, you can see it on every message-board, after every important game. What the statistics revolution was to baseball, the rule-interpretation counsellors could become to NFL football. Instead of spending millions on players and coaching, spend a hundred grand on a rules nerd to compile lists and video of precedent and references. 
 
There really ought to be some way to streamline the rules of a game down to clear, empirical concepts such as "was or was not over the line" or "was before or after the starting gun" or "ball touched the ground or did not". This is not an argument against complex games, nor against deep and sophisticated games of strategy. Just an argument that the rules of a game should be clear and well-defined. Maybe we will always have human refs calling balls and strikes, or maybe we will someday switch to lasers and computers. But in either case, neither the ump nor the lasers and computers should require the assistance of legal counsel.
 
The facts may be forever disputed in sports, but the application of the law should be obvious, I think. 

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

A couple comments in response:
First, lawyers ( of which there are many here, as you well know) tend to be pretty good at picking up on ambiguities in language. A word like indisputable is frankly low-hanging fruit.
Second, any set of written rules that needs to be applied to complex facts will have variable clarity of application. It's the inherent imprecision of language as symbolism for reality. One law prof I had analogized it to covering a globe with a rug. You can make part of it fit well, but never all of it. There will always be a crease or bump or what have you.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
[Been discussing this in two other fora, thought I'd add my 2 pence here]
I watched both catches, and (sorry, to lexra) apparently there is a de facto requirement here for a player to do something to "sell" the catch to the refs.  Thus a dangerous inconsistency then exists, in that, to ensure that your catch isn't nullified by the ground causing the ball to come loose, that the receiver is virtually forced to do something "extra", in a very obvious and unmistakable way, above and beyond the usual, to get the officials to give him credit for the catch, even if the same amount of time elapsed in both scenarios, if the number of steps involved is the same, etc.  If he has an opportunity to make such a move, and doesn't, well, he's just hosed himself, and his team, even (or especially) if in the end said move is completely unnecessary.
 
In the clips, Johnson didn't try anything else (and why should he?), Thomas did, the latter gets a TD, the former doesn't.  And that is what stinks to High Hades here about the whole thing.  The NFL abjectly refuses to define what the period of time/distance traveled needs to be before a catch incontrovertily becomes a catch, and that just ain't TF right.
 
If you don't find something terribly wrong at the core with such a rule, then I don't know what else to say.

There are differences in the two situations.
 
Calvin Johnson is obviously falling (or lunging) as he makes the catch, aka, going to the ground.  The rulebook is crystal clear when the player is going to the ground as he's making the catch; the receiver must maintain control while contacting the ground; Johnson doesn't.  
 
Thomas catches the ball before he starts going to the ground; therefore, it is a catch.  He could have stood there doing nothing instead of leaping toward the end zone, and it still would have been a catch.  
 
This is not a matter of interpreting the rule book differently.  

 

[MalzoneExpress]

There are differences in the two situations.
 
Calvin Johnson is obviously falling (or lunging) as he makes the catch, aka, going to the ground.  The rulebook is crystal clear when the player is going to the ground as he's making the catch; the receiver must maintain control while contacting the ground; Johnson doesn't.  
 
Thomas catches the ball before he starts going to the ground; therefore, it is a catch.  He could have stood there doing nothing instead of leaping toward the end zone, and it still would have been a catch.  
 
This is not a matter of interpreting the rule book differently.  
 
The Rule Quoted Above
==================
Article 3
Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) 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
© maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball
throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

 
I know I said I was done, but after watching the Crystaline video and Blandino speak on NFLN last night, I see now that the rules are not being strictly applied as written. it appears that the NFL is using the "making an obvious football move" to differentiate some going to the ground situations even though there is no mention in the rule about this exception.
 
There are clear cut situations where a receiver is going to the ground while in the process of completing a catch like the Megatron diving catch example, but there are other situations where the application of GtG is subjective and based on whether the player made an obvious football move. Thomas was contacted by a defender during the process of catching the ball and was going to the ground notwithstanding the couple of staggering steps he took. However, the turn and lunge into the end zone was considered an obvious football move so the GtG requirement was not imposed.
 
It appears that once c) above has been demonstrated in an obvious way, the GtG requirement is not applied. Doing it this way will prevent nullification of a catch that any reasonable person would consider catch, but it is subjective.
 
So the football move(s) Bryant made to complete his catch were subjectively deemed to not meet the obviousness threshold and the GtG requirement was imposed.  It sure looks like Bryant was trying to lunge and reach the ball across the goal line. There was no other reason for him to wind up face down with the ball extended forward. He high-pointed the ball; he didn't dive for it. The only reason his lunge wasn't obvious enough was because the defender's foot tripped him up and interfered with the full lunge.
 
Butch Johnson's Super Bowl TD would be nullified under today's rules.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4&t=28

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Malzone, looking at your post and at the ref's pool report posted above at post 28, I think you're convincing me that those who interpret the rule are putting a bit more nuance in it than what I think the best reading of the rule allows.
 
To state what I think is the best reading of the rule, I think it's easiest to compare two hypothetical situations.  I'll use the word "stumble" to mean all the ways that a receiver can go to ground -- losing balance, tripping, diving, being pushed.  And I'll use "football move" as the traditional euphemism for the act common to the game requirement.
 
1) Possession, body part(s) in bounds, football move.  Stumble.  This is a catch and there is no requirement to maintain control throughout contact with the ground.
 
2) Possession, body part(s) in bounds.  Stumble.  Football move during stumble.  GTG applies, and control must be maintained throughout contact with the ground.
 
But I agree there seems to be some sense that at least for certain kinds of losing balance stumbles, or other stumbles that take a somewhat longer time for gravity to do its thing and get the receiver to the ground, if the receiver manages to complete a super obvious football move before hitting the ground, it may negate the GTG requirement.  
 
It's hard to find textual support for that kind of approach, but I suppose it turns on the question of timing -- when must the "act of completing the catch" occur in relation to the components of going to the ground?  If you wanted to find some support for this approach in the text, I suppose you could say that if the "act of completing a catch," as established by a football move, occurs before the receiver actually gets to ground, the receiver is no longer going to ground in the act of completing the catch.  I think Dez completed a football move while going to ground, or at least had time to, although it is very close.
 
Edit:  I guess one other way to look at it is that if a player makes a football move, then he wasn't yet going to ground.  In other words, those interpreting "going to ground" give it a very specific, not intuitive meaning that maybe occurs later than we all think.  It's not the beginning of the stumble or the trip, or what we might commonly say is the point when a person starts to fall.  It's a bit later -- that is, when he's in position where it is an inevitable law of physics that he will hit the ground.  In such cases, if you can manage to do a football move while in that position, you must not yet have been "going to ground" under this nonintuitive definition.  In this case, though, when a player is horizontal when he makes his football move, it's probably hard to ever claim that he wasn't yet going to ground.

 

[johnmd20]

 
Butch Johnson's Super Bowl TD would be nullified under today's rules.
 

 
Good. That shouldn't have been a catch.

 

[Average Reds]

 
 
Butch Johnson's Super Bowl TD would be nullified under today's rules.
 

 
I believe you are correct.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Malzone, looking at your post and at the ref's pool report posted above at post 28, I think you're convincing me that those who interpret the rule are putting a bit more nuance in it than what I think the best reading of the rule allows.
 
To state what I think is the best reading of the rule, I think it's easiest to compare two hypothetical situations.  I'll use the word "stumble" to mean all the ways that a receiver can go to ground -- losing balance, tripping, diving, being pushed.  And I'll use "football move" as the traditional euphemism for the act common to the game requirement.
 
1) Possession, body part(s) in bounds, football move.  Stumble.  This is a catch and there is no requirement to maintain control throughout contact with the ground.
 
2) Possession, body part(s) in bounds.  Stumble.  Football move during stumble.  GTG applies, and control must be maintained throughout contact with the ground.
 
But I agree there seems to be some sense that at least for certain kinds of losing balance stumbles, or other stumbles that take a somewhat longer time for gravity to do its thing and get the receiver to the ground, if the receiver manages to complete a super obvious football move before hitting the ground, it may negate the GTG requirement.  
 
It's hard to find textual support for that kind of approach, but I suppose it turns on the question of timing -- when must the "act of completing the catch" occur in relation to the components of going to the ground?  If you wanted to find some support for this approach in the text, I suppose you could say that if the "act of completing a catch," as established by a football move, occurs before the receiver actually gets to ground, the receiver is no longer going to ground in the act of completing the catch.  I think Dez completed a football move while going to ground, or at least had time to, although it is very close.
 
Edit:  I guess one other way to look at it is that if a player makes a football move, then he wasn't yet going to ground.  In other words, those interpreting "going to ground" give it a very specific, not intuitive meaning that maybe occurs later than we all think.  It's not the beginning of the stumble or the trip, or what we might commonly say is the point when a person starts to fall.  It's a bit later -- that is, when he's in position where it is an inevitable law of physics that he will hit the ground.  In such cases, if you can manage to do a football move while in that position, you must not yet have been "going to ground" under this nonintuitive definition.  In this case, though, when a player is horizontal when he makes his football move, it's probably hard to ever claim that he wasn't yet going to ground.

I think it is simpler than that. GtG as it were encompasses the entire time from catch to landing if there is a fall. GtG has a requirement on impact with the ground regarding the ball. What is being said and interpretted by fans and the league is that a common football move doesn't change the chronology or put any dividing line in play - is simply suspends the GtG requirement at that point and converts the receiver to an ordinary ball carrier for purposes of impact with the ground. It suspends further appliction of the GtG rule for that play. No football move, ergo no suspension of the GtG requirement - which is what the league review said happened.

The league explicitly said via Blandino that it doesn't have to be a completed move, it just has to be able to say that it deems a football move has been attempted to suspend the GtG requirements.

I have two issues in this case:
a) I believe there was clear evidence of an attempted football move: a lunge that most in here acknowledge occurred. I detailed why I believe it occurred. Good lunge, bad lunge, an ill conceived choice to make a lunge, but a lunge for the endzone. If one believes he lunged for the endzone, then the GtG requirement is removed and the play was erroneously reversed.
b) Blandino said in his mind the proof of a lunge wasn't conclusive enough. That means there was a bit of evidence of a lunge. That means he wasn't sure. The overruling standard for replays is supposed to be conclusive proof. In the absence of conclusive proof, the call on the field is supposed to stand - the initial call was a catch.

In either a) or b) above, the reversal was incorrect. LaFell is capable of that exact play and I want it called correctly - Bryant's was a catch, and if it happens again exactly the same - I don't want the Patriots to be on the wrong end of a similar mistake.