Welp, I don't know what else to say. What I see, frame by frame, is his right hand losing grasp, with the ball then laying loose on the ground, between his hands, but out of his "grasp".
Here's the larger issue, if you are of the opinion that the current rule needs to be changed, how do you redefine what is a catch?
I think we can all agree that if a player is on his feet, makes the catch, controlling the ball in his hands, and then takes two (or is it three?) steps, then we have a catch. When in the act of catching the ball, but not taking steps, ergo, due to either momentum or being hit, he is falling to the ground, how do you define the catch in that instance? Can you come up with a better written definition?
I will tell you the thing about the catch in the Pitt / NE game, to my eyes, even though Jesse James had taken no steps and was therefore deemed as going to the ground during the act of catching, I saw the ball clearly secured in his hands, with his body twisting and his hands then reaching out with the ball in an attempt to break the plane of the goal line. At this point in time, it was, imho, indisputable that he had full control of the ball!
So, to allow for the above situation, where he clearly has full control of the ball, do you propose going back to the old way that the ground cannot cause a fumble?
I have to admit, I am a little bit torn on this one. In one way, as in the Jesse James example, it sure looks to me like he clearly made the catch with control, before hitting the ground. But by the same token, I think it's pretty jitty that when a guy is on the way to the ground upon attempting to make a catch, that if when he hits the ground and the ball flies out of his hand, that it might still be deemed a catch.
So perhaps the solution is found in the definition of what is a "football move". Again with the Jesse James example, to my eyes, he DID make a football move, by virtue of changing the trajectory of his arms and hands while holding the ball ... ergo, in reaching out with his hands, with the ball clearly under his control in so doing, he did indeed make a "football move". Changing this rule, though, might just make things even MORE subjective. Hence, like I originally posted, this sort of thing is a sticky wicket.