When the dedicated rules official (brought in by the network in the booth) gets it wrong - just seems like there's a tremendous disconnect there somewhere. He has the same advantage via high-def television replay as the rules officials reviewing the play.
The ruling on the field was correct. Which isn't to say that the rule itself is correct, especially when there is so much controversy regarding these type plays, when rules officials can't agree on the same call and see it differently.
We can look at the verbiage and how the rule applies via the written law, but that doesn't remove the disconnect when there is a disagreement of the call between the decision made per review and the rules official in the booth. After all - it is assumed that he knows the rules better than we do. But when he gets it wrong, based on what he's observed via high-def replay?
It just tells me that this rule, whether it's a catch or not in the end zone, needs to be simplified.
A player, be it a runner or a receiver, either has possession of the ball once it crosses the margin of the goal-line or he does not. And if there's this impetus to hold the runner to the same standard as the receiver - so be it. I'd personally have no issue with that.
At least the ruling would be consistent.
Does the offensive player have possession of the ball once it crosses the goal-line, be it a runner or a receiver? This is the crux of the argument. Why a receiver isn't given the same degree of latitude as a runner is beyond my comprehension. Possession of the ball, control of the ball, as the ball crosses the goal-line.
Like I said - this doesn't need to be that complicated. Yet it is.
JMO