[BoomerSooner]

From the what feels "fair" point of view, it is hard not to agree with awarding a touchdown.

Unfortunately, I don't know that the rules support awarding a touchdown in this case. As best I can recall, the only spot where awarding a touchdown is discussed is under "Unfair Acts". In that section, the only potential articles that apply are article 1 (shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage) and article 5 (shall commit any act which tends to make a travesty of the game).

I don't think the player's act directly hindered play. If you argue that it did by causing an inadvertent whistle, then you don't have a situation without specific rule coverage. I also don't think this made a travesty of the game.

In the end, I think the rules would support treating this like any other inadvertent whistle situation. With that in mind and given the situation, I'd be in the corner of whichever official thought the catch was before the whistle even though I realize the different opinions on their part was probably the result of one of them not hearing the first of several whistle blows from the umpire.