I think the league wants deference to the on-field call in these judgment-call situations. I don't mind that in general, but I don't think deference should be paid in automatic review situations (scoring plays and turnovers), because officials often (appropriately, imo) err in favor of triggering automatic review, rather than calling them as they see them.
If the on-field call was afforded no deference, I think that's called no catch. Put it this way: if that play happened in the middle of the field, do you think it would've been called a catch and a fumble??
Agree with your first sentence, and find this to be a growing trend, for better or worse, in sports replays in general, perhaps to emphasize the importance (perhaps need) of on-field officials. Like you, if it goes to automatic review, deference doesn't need to be paid when a play leads to automatic review. We also agree that this was probably smart to call on-field as a TD, as to get the replay.
With no deference to on-field? Yeah, that's not called. My surprise (and, hence, my post) came at the surprise the the levity and/or weight of the original call's deference had, given the call of similar (non) receptions, like Dez in 2014, but moreso OBJ (called a TD on field, waived off after review; clip below) last year. As for a middle of the field, hm, good question. I'm not sure how many refs call it that way, but I do call it a fumble under 3-2-7, Item 2: "
A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps."
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000580730/Catch-or-no-catch-Beckham-TD-called-back