If you watch closely, I think his upper body land on the white stripe before his lower body lands inbounds. I'm going to guess that they ruled it a legal catch, but out of bounds. I'd like to hear an official explanation, though.

 

On that point, the announcers at the game made the point that his elbow touched down first which established him being in bounds. As I said above, I believe the final explanation will be that he did not have control of the ball till he was out of bounds.

No way was that a catch IMO. He did not completely have possession when the tip of the ball hit he ground.

 

I still feel that the better team lost this game, but its nice for Michigan to get a BCS win.

If you watch closely, I think his upper body land on the white stripe before his lower body lands inbounds. I'm going to guess that they ruled it a legal catch, but out of bounds. I'd like to hear an official explanation, though.

 

His left elbow hits the ground first, and it hits clearly inbounds. I can't see how they overturned it since it was ruled a catch on the field. If it had ruled incomplete, I don't see how they could have overturned that call either.

IMO, not a catch.

I say no catch. Watch the left hand of the receiver as he hits the ground (final angle). His fingers are extended and it appears the ball is pinned against his wrist. He then wraps it up when out of bounds.

Catch. Official signaled catch, he was right there. I'm old school, live with what the official calls.

Though controversial, I'm happy to see UM get a big time bowl win. It's been quite a dry spell.

On that point, the announcers at the game made the point that his elbow touched down first which established him being in bounds. As I said above, I believe the final explanation will be that he did not have control of the ball till he was out of bounds.

 

That is what it looked like to me.

Catch. Official signaled catch, he was right there. I'm old school, live with what the official calls.

Get off the rotary phone!