If the ball hits the ground, its fair that its incomplete

[Superman]

True, but I'm not a fan of the 'Ground can cause an incompletion, but not a fumble.'  In Dez and Calvin Johnson's case, I'm in favor of the down by contact rule.  If they got both feet down and no bobbling then they hit the ground... play over if defender had contact, or receiver fumbles it on ground impact, whether ball hits ground or not.  They didn't use ground to secure the catch, the ground is point of ending the play, not nullifying the play, IMHO.

 

That's a legit argument. Problem is the plays where the receiver demonstrates less control than Dez did while going to the ground as a part of catching the ball. They've left their feet, they're trying to control the ball, and when they land, the ball comes out. There's a lot of grey area with these situations.

[ColtsBlueFL]

That's a legit argument. Problem is the plays where the receiver demonstrates less control than Dez did while going to the ground as a part of catching the ball. They've left their feet, they're trying to control the ball, and when they land, the ball comes out. There's a lot of grey area with these situations.

 

True, and that is where possession before going to the ground and slo-mo come into play.  if there is ball movement and bobbling while the player is falling to the ground, then no possession at that point and play ends when players hits the ground and he loses control... unless the ball itself does not hit the ground and the receiver can re-possess it.  It's a tough issue the NFL has themselves painted into on this.