I gonna start a new post as opposed to responding to folks. Rules are rules and must be applied consistently even if the application of one, or a combination of many, seem really harsh as to what we think is "fair".
Short Answer: I have looked at the play again today and read the ref's reasoning. In the end of day he determined that the ball moved on the player after he hit in the end zone and rolled out of bounds. The clear evidence is that he is of the opinion that factually speaking the ball moved, and if so, that movement of the ball creates the clear evidence necessary to say it was not a catch and overturn the call. This play is as simple as this and really has less to do with any "bad" rule. The bottom line is do you think the ball move or not when the TE rolled out of bounds.
I find it easy to step from a situation that seems confusing and look at things i can related too.
A. I have already mentioned the down by contact point, and thus, we should all be comfortable with the point that possession is lost once the ball is a millimeter from where it was held, when knocked loose by a defender.
B. We all have seen fumbles on punts, or by the offense, and the defenders scramble for the ball but do not get possession till they go out of bounds, and they do not get the turnover. Thus, we should all be comfortable with the principle that one does not get possession of a ball if he does not do so before going out of bounds
C. We have all seen balls get dislodged and roll out of the end zone and are touch backs (google Leon Lett), if it happens in your end zone it is a safety, which happen in the KC/Pitt game yesterday. Thus we should all be comfortable with the point if you loose possession of the the ball and no one get possession till it goes out of bounds in the end zone, the rule is clear for either side and either end zone.
D. We have all seen WR going to the ground out of bounds after getting two feet in and catch and control the ball, but we must wait till we see if he bobbles the ball as he lands out of bounds. They have to maintain control as he goes to the ground. If the ball does not move, or the player controls the movement of the ball, it is a catch. However, if the ball moves on the player it is not a catch. We have seen this many times and at times the call is reversed and it comes down to the opinion of the ref if the ball did or did not move. Actually, is the case here.
With above said, might make this play easier to digest.
Here have have the followings facts:
1) The TE caught the ball in the field of play and had possession
2) Ball was dislodged by Bulter, so TE lost possession of the ball and it is a free ball (Part A above).
3) As (2) occurred before the ball cross the plane it is not a touchdown (one needs possession of the ball to make breaking the plane a TD which did not happen).
4) As the ball was dislodged it was a free ball with neither team in possession. In order to gain possession a player from either team needs control, two feet or body part above the knee. If this player is going to the ground he has an additional element of maintaining control through the ground. If he goes out of bounds before completing these he does not have possession (Part B above)
5) TE was falling to the ground
6) TE then gain control of the ball while the ball was in the end zone
7) It appears that his knee hit in bounds in the field of play before his shoulder hit out of bounds in the end zone
8) Because of (7) and (8), he has completed the first two parts in item (4), but must maintain control prior to going out of bounds as he is going to the ground, in order to be credited with possession.
9) Now the rub: Does the ball move or not move as he rolls out of bounds?
If one answer yes to 9 then he has not maintained control of the ball while going to the ground and he does not ahve possession, without possession and him out of bounds, the ball is dead at that spot with is out of bounds in the end zone, thus a touch back. Ruling should be overturned
If one answer no to 9 (or that he controlled the movement of the ball whilst rolling) then he has completed the three items needed for possession (control, knee in bounds, and control going to ground), he then has possession prior to going out of bounds, ball in end zone, touch down, call affirmed.
So in the end is it not a bad rule, or anything that is complicated, it is really no different that a WR catching a ball as he is falling out of bounds and did he maintain control as he went to the ground.
Corrente was of the opinion that the ball move, and in which case, he has to overturn the TD call.