The thing is, he clearly caught the ball, cleanly, turned, took 3 full steps and dove. The question of a catch shouldn't even be a question.
Right. I think that was clearly a catch by any definition, which is why the call was Confirmed, rather than only Stands upon review. Only the similarities to the Jesse James catch gives anybody pause, and in my opinion the James play was much murkier where the twist and dive towards the goal-line happened while the catch was still being made whereas with Ertz he made a clear movement after catching the ball before diving.
I think you'd have a much better case arguing that the James play should have been called a catch than you would arguing that the Ertz play should've been incomplete.
