They both should've been TDs
This. The rule is dumb
There is no way to write a rule that will agree with your intuition in all cases.
Sure there is, if you have 2 feet down and the ball crosses the goalline, it's a TD. It's really that simple. Instead, it's a cluster #### of did he 'make a football move'. Calvin had 2 feet down and the ball firmly in both hands as he crossed the goal line.
A RB can leap off the ground put the ball across the goalline and it's a TD regardless of wether a defender knocks it out of his hands. He doesn't need to 'complete a football move'.
That's only because a RB already has possession of the ball. A receiver who hasn't completed the catch does not. And realize "control" in completing a catch and "possession" mean different things here.
The equivalent for a RB would be the ball is pitched to him but he never catches it cleanly and is juggling it when he crosses the goal line. Since he has not yet gained possession, it is not a touchdown. For a receiver, he does not have possession unless every element of the catch is completed.
This isn't any different than it used to be. Let's say 6 years ago before the rule change, a receiver gets control of the ball, 1 foot down, the ball crosses the goal line, and then his 2nd foot comes down out of bounds. You wouldn't say that was a touchdown because he never made the catch, so never had possession of the ball when it crossed the goal line. It's the same exact thing now. Just the NFL made more stringent and objective what has to happen before it is considered a catch.
The real issue is people want to keep judging it by "do I think he held it long enough" instead of judging it by how the rule reads, where they use events where possible (going to the ground, a football move) to determine the point when the requirements are completed.
Calvin HAD posession. Video clearly shows 2 hands clutching the ball as he crosses the plane but because they deemed his 2 feet down prior to crossing the line NOT a football move, it was an incompletion. Prettty much as dumb a rule as one can make up. Guy has now been ripped off twice due to the dumbest 'rule' in football.
To avoid confusing terms...
Control (ball in your hands and not moving) has a different meaning in this context than
Possession (if tackled in play your team is on offense the next play). You can have Control but never gain Possession for several reasons, such as if you never get 2 feet in bounds.
Calvin had Control of the ball. It was in his hands and not moving. He does not have Possession until he completes all of the requirements of a catch. There are 3 requirements (control being one of them) if you do not go to the ground. If you go to the ground before completing those 3, then the 4th requirement of controlling it through hitting the ground is added.
Calvin was already going to the ground at the moment his 2 feet touched down, the 2nd requirement. Looking at the last jpeg I posted can you honestly say he is not falling to the ground at that moment? If he is, then he is going to the ground before completing "a football move". Which means the 4th requirement of controlling the ball through hitting the ground is added before he is deemed to have Possession.
Again, refer to my earlier example. If it was a sideline play and he got control, 1 foot in, ball broke the plane, and 2nd foot afterwards came down out of bounds, you would not say it was a touchdown. You wouldn't say that because you accept that "2 feet in" is a requirement of making a catch. The disconnect here is that you accept the 2 foot requirement, and will use not fulfilling it to disqualify possession. But you're not doing the same for the other requirements, which in this case involves controlling through going to the ground.