On the interception by Johnson that was overturned, he got one foot in and then the toe of the other foot touched in bounds before the heel touched out of bounds. In my opinion, it is a stupid rule that this is not regarded as a legitimate interception. The NFL comes up with so many idiotic rules and phrases used to describe them, such as "tuck," "toe drag," and my favorite of all, "football move." If a player drags their toe in bounds, it is regarded as a legitimate catch. If a player touches his toe in bounds but then the heel touches out of bounds, it is not a legitimate catch. Where is the logic in these idiotic rules? Presumably, it would have been ruled a legitimate catch if Johnson had touched his toe in bounds and then lifted the foot and then touched the entire foot out of bounds. I could see the logic if the rule pertained to simultaneously touching the toe in bounds and and the heel on the line.
