Last night was yet another addition to the 17 year (and counting) thrill ride that is the Brady/Beichick Patriots. I dont really care if anyone hates the call or thinks it's the wrong call or thinks it's an NFL conspiracy, the Pats pulled out the miracle and the ride continues for now.
Objectively, I can't fathom why the rule book would make that a 'no catch'. My eyes tell me he caught it, controlled it, held it, stretched out, broke the plane and scored. But I'll gladly take it. What a great game.
There is a very good reason for it.
In your scenario a guy could "catch" the ball, immediately go down, and so long as he crosses the plane before he loses control everything is good.
But this opens up a whole can of worms.
What if the ball flies wildly out of the receiver's hands a split second after he crosses the plane? Did he truly establish control if he can't hold on through that simple action? What if he briefly looked like he had control but really didn't? How short a time does he have to have it before he touches the plane for it to count?
The current rule removes all this ambiguity. After a reception you must control the ball all the way through the ground or you don't receive credit for a catch. It doesn't matter what part of the field you're on. Just hold on to the ball all the way through the ground. It's the player's responsibility to know these rules and follow them.
If the Pittsburgh receiver had just barely crossed the plane after the catch and then lost the ball in mid-air and still gotten credit for a TD Pats fans would be livid.
Truth is that football is a very tough game to officiate, and someone is going to be angry every time. Like on that 37-yard reception by Cooks that was called back because he was shoved out of bounds and was the first to touch the ball. He really only had one leg out of bounds for half a second before he jumped back in, and still it was enough. He beat his man but lost the reception due to a technicality. It didn't "feel" right, and yet there are good reasons for the rule.
The best teams - like the Patriots - know the intricacies and use it to their advantage (Malcolm Butler's goal-line strip-fumble earlier in the year for a touchback is a good example). The others are left with excuses and conspiracy theories.
I understand what you are saying, but it isn't actually always true that you must control the ball all the way to the ground. A player can catch a ball, run ten yards, fall to the ground, bobble the ball when it touches the ground, and yes, it's a catch. My point is that my eyes tell me that James controlled the ball before he crossed the plane and the ball hit the ground. I get the need for objectivity -- but when the eye test tells you it was a catch before the ball goes to the ground, the rules should match the reality. He caught it, pulled it in, went to the ground, crossed the plane as he reached out with the ball in control (the whole time in complete control of the ball), and then... it hit the ground and the ground loosened his grip. That play looks like a catch. If it happened mid-field, it should be a catch and if the ball pops up off the ground it would be a fumble (assuming he really loses the ball and is untouched). It shouldn't be a fumble in the end-zone because the plane was crossed when in control of the ball (this is my opinion, clearly at odds with current rules). I was thrilled with the call and I understand the current rules and precedent -- I don't dispute the call based on current rules -- but it looks too much like a catch to not be a catch, IMO.