Well, that's a shock. Had zero expectation of Ficken making that - and it didn't look so great off his foot. I'll take it.
That explanation from CBS on why that apparently should have been an INT... I've never been more confused on what a catch is.
Yeah, I think it would have been an interception in the end zone, but in the field, wouldn't he have had to "complete the action" as he went to the ground in the field?