When a ball carrier has possession in the field of play, and carries the ball toward the end zone, the requirement for scoring a touchdown is that the ball cross the plane of the goal line. The position of the player's body parts is irrelevant, so long as he is not out-of-bounds, or down.
For a pass play, a receiver must have control of the ball with either two feet down, or equivalent (e.g. one knee down). But, to be considered a touchdown, does the ball not still need to break the plane of the goal line, even if the receiver gets two feet down in the end zone, with control?
In today's San Francisco / Philadelphia game, Stevie Johnson was awarded a touchdown on a great catch, where he came back to the ball, and got two feet down in the very front corner of the end zone, while falling out of bounds.
(http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2014092809/2014/REG4/eagles@49ers#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000402398&tab=videos ... Wk 4 Can't Miss Play: Stevie Wonder)
Given the angle that his body fell (back toward the line of scrimmage and toward the sideline), where the ball in his hands landed as he hit the ground (the 1 yard line), and the proximity of his feet to the front corner of the end zone, it seems to me like this should not have been called a touchdown, with the ball instead being placed on the half yard line (ish).
Am I misunderstanding a nuance of the rule for catches in the end zone? Does it matter that the player established his body in the end zone before coming back to the ball? Is this just an instance of announcers and officials not noticing something that usually isn't an issue? I heard no mention of the question of whether the plane was ever broken on the broadcast, or sports media write-ups of the game. The focus only seemed to be whether a catch was made (which it clearly was).