You are confusing “going to the ground” with “down by contact.” The rules are clear that you have to hold on to the ball into the ground. If you cannot maintain two solid feet and control of the ball, then it is not a catch in the big leagues. It may make for spectacular highlights to have shoestring catches with two toe taps in bounds, but this isn’t college.

When Jones goes over the defender, he is no longer going down to the ground. Also, the defender is adding new action to the process of making a catch, so the action of going to the ground has stopped. Convoluted description, yes, but the rules are very clear on this.

You’re ultra-semantical argument that Jones hit the “ground” in the end zone when he fell on top of the defender is unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rules, and indefensible. Jones didn’t actually hit the ground until he flipped over the defender, otherwise any contact with any part of the end zone (or any defender in the end zone) after establishing possession would result in a touchdown. That would suggest that if Murphy had been in contact with a defender as any part of his body touched the ground in the end zone on his disputed touchdown catch then it should have been ruled a valid score. The real issue is the NFL (intentionally or not) has immersed itself in the miasma of semantical argument (without, it appears, the capacity for it) on issues that even the average fan can intuit, to the sport’s detriment. Out with instant replay and labyrinthine rules. The NFL and its officials are clearly incapable of applying either accurately and efficiently.