WHY THAT WAS A CLEAR TOUCHDOWN ACCORDING TO THE NFL RULES

He hit the ground outside the end zone. If the ground was counted part of the play like yesterday then the spot of the ball should be outside of the endzone and his catch can't be rule a TD. In Holmes case, the argument was he caught the pass both feet landed inside the endzone so it is the TD.

The point I am trying to make here is that as soon as a receiver catch the ball in the end zone with both feet landed it is a TD. The play ended there, no ground or defender can cause the fumble.

I think you meant the Pittsburgh @ Baltimore game. Happened right at the end of the game?

First, it was not a ruled touchdown because both of his feet were in the end zone. The officials ruled that the ball broke the plane of the end zone.

From the official game book:
3-4-BLT 4 (:50) B.Roethlisberger pass short middle to S.Holmes to BLT 1 for 3 yards (E.Reed). P18
The Replay Assistant challenged the runner broke the plane ruling, and the play was REVERSED.
B.Roethlisberger pass short middle to S.Holmes for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

From the offical rule book:
Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or
(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponent’s goal line; or
(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above, or behind the opponents’ goal line.
(2) For a foul after a touchdown (between downs), see 3-11-2-a and 14-5.
A.R. 11.1 Third-and-goal on B2. Runner A1 goes to the goal line with the ball over the plane of the goal line. He is tackled and fumbles and the defensive team recovers in the end zone.
Ruling : Touchdown. The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on the opponent’s goal line.

Second, the ground only counts in terms of possession of the ball. The play is not dead when his feet hit the ground. It is stated very clearly in the rule book in black and white.

Here it is again:

A.R. 8.10

While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.
Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.

If he still had possession after hitting the ground then it should have been a catch and a TD. If he didn't the rules are crystal clear -- it would be incomplete.

What you are saying does not correlate with what is in the official rule book. Plain and simple.

(1) The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above, or behind the opponents’ goal line.

He clearly had possession of the ball and has both feet landed prior to falling down and the ball popped out. The ruling should have been a TD because the ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above, or behind the opponents’ goal line.

Correct. You are ignoring what defines legal player possession. It is defined by the rule I have posted more then once:

A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.
Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.

Read the bold section. That defines legal player possession. It isn't in the rule book to use ink.

Not in the end zone! In the end zone, a TD is ruled once the receiver has both feet landed and maintain possession of the ball

Really???? Provide the rule, section article from the official rule book that defines legal player possession in the end zone differently then from anywhere else on the field.

I have the rule book in front of me. You simply have what you believe to be true.

Look I don't make the rules and don't necessarily agree with the rule in question but it is the rule. If the pass is incomplete it can't be a touchdown.

I myself am having way more trouble attempting to understand how the rule can be argued then I do understanding the rule itself.

It is honorable that you are trying to do this.

I have had similar debates here at covers - things like the mathematics of hedging parlays, rules of football, strategy of football etc - and I have learned one thing - these debates are tiresome and rarely winable due to the lack of brain power on the other side.

You present a fact, they ignore it.  You present it again, they ignore it and try to show how math or a fact is wrong.

You cant win. 

Yeah, they definitely ignore the facts over and over again. I have seen quite a few threads in which you were attempting to explain a number of basic concepts. Of course the etymology of ignore takes us to ignorant and it seems there is no shortage of ignorance around here.

I am not sure if the ignorance is from an actual lack of intelligence or just a refusal to accept that they lack an understanding on a subject. I want to believe it is the latter becasue the former is actually kind of scary. I don't know why someone wouldn't want to increase their awareness and knowledge. It baffles me becasue I seek to learn every day.

I believe this whole "bad call so it must be fixed conspiracy" stuff is simply used to console themselves over a lost bet. I think most believe they are better at handicapping then they are although they may be good at it, just not as good as they think. I suppose we all have a little bit of that in us as it relates to all topics but some sports gamblers go to the extreme.

If for instance they handicap a game to go over and it goes under then it couldn't be that they simply lost the bet. There had to be some external force beyond the scope of their superior handicapping skills otherwise the game certainly would have gone over. If they claim it was a bad call and/or it was fixed and ignore all facts to the contrary then they can claim (at least amongst themselves) that they are still superior handicappers.

I know I can't win but it probably won't stop me from trying. Besides it is a good way to boost my post total.

And here's a transcript of pool reporter Steve Corkran's discussion with referee Carl Cheffer, whose crew overturned the TD.

Cheffers: OK, so what's the question?
Corkran: We just want the ruling on why you decided to look at the play at the end of half on when you called touchdown for Louis Murphy, then you said that you wanted to review it, and then it got overturned. What was the ruling on that?

Cheffers: OK, great, let me just grab the (rule) book here, and I'm going to read you what the book says. We had a situation where the receiver caught the pass in the air and as he is coming down to the ground, he is actually going to the ground. That's a defined term in our rule book, a player, a receiver who is going to the ground. The rule book says, if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, with or without contact by opponent - so that can be on his own; In this case, he got hit by an opponent - he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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. That wasn't the case. What we ruled, what we saw in replay, was that he was going to the ground, as he came down the ball came loose, he lost control of the ball, the ball skidded along the ground, he eventually completely lost control of the ball. So, by rule, by what we saw in review, it's an incomplete pass.

Corkran: So, this has nothing to do with him having to - he got both feet down - it has nothing to do with that, it has nothing to do with making a football move? It's just what you said there?
Cheffers: Yeah, he was up, I think if I remember, (on) one foot, he was getting contacted prior to his second foot coming down. By definition in our rule book, he's going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it's incomplete.

Corkran: It was pretty clear-cut?
Cheffers: Pretty clear-cut.

Corkran: Carl, thank you for your time.
Cheffers: My pleasure.

+++++++++

Give me a break!

What a fucking explaination. He basically said that Murphy did not have complete possession of the ball after catching the ball. He avoid saying that the receiver got both feet down before get tackle into the ground.

Cheffers: Yeah, he was up, I think if I remember, (on) one foot, he was getting contacted prior to his second foot coming down. By definition in our rule book, he's going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it's incomplete.

He avoided saying that the receiver got both feet down before the getting tackled into the ground because as I and others have pointed out, numerous times, it is irrelevant that he got both feet down.

In that scenario it is not catch until you have maintained possession after hitting the ground as explained by Cheffers quite clearly in the text of your post.

It appears that everyone on the board except you has recognized that fact or at least won't admit that they don't. The NFL does not play by your set of rules.

If you are saying that Murphy caught the pass, got both feet down AND maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground then you have the rule correct.

In that case then I won't argue with you as you are simply complaining that he did in fact have possession after hitting the ground which is subjective.

However, that doesn't appear to be the case as you seem to view the part about maintaining possession after hitting the ground as not required for a catch. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you simply continue to ignore the truth.

In that case it would seem that the  is on you not Cheffers becasue you are actually posting evidence against your own argument.

You miss my point

I am stressing the fact that Murphy caught the pass, got both feet down AND maintained possession of the ball the play end there no need to worry about what happens after that.

Anyway, I think we are wasting time and energy here. What matter most is making money calling the right bets

Holy shit!  I think you nailed it right on the head.  I couldn't agree with you more.  Well said my friend.  If he catches the ball, rule it a reception.  It really isn't that complicated.  But they have made it complicated haven't they? 

BTW... I had no money on this game.  I'm broke and laid off... great economy.

The NFL needs to change this rule soon.  It's every bit as dumb as the tuck rule.  Brady clearly had intentions of NOT throwing.  He FUMBLED the ball after being hit.  Yet, according to the rules, it's an incomplete pass.    That makes sense.  Surely the ref can't make a judgement call and decide for himself that it was not a pass, and that he did fumble.  Great rule there... makes perfect sense.  Like a pile of clothes hangers. 

I know, but thank you.  I'm just saying they need to change the rule.