PDA

View Full Version : Lestar Jean incompletion


NastyNate
09-10-2012, 02:27 PM
Any good link to a replay? From the stands it defnitely looked like a TD. Was sitting next to two Dolphins fans who even said the same. Thoughts for those that watched it on their huge HD screens?

Grams
09-10-2012, 02:28 PM
If it is the one I am thinking about - he dropped the ball when he landed.

Vinny
09-10-2012, 02:29 PM
Any good link to a replay? From the stands it defnitely looked like a TD. Was sitting next to two Dolphins fans who even said the same. Thoughts for those that watched it on their huge HD screens?
I think their decision was that his feet were in but the ball was bobbled/not controlled.

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 02:29 PM
It wasn't a catch. The ball came out when he hit the ground. The Calvin Johnson rule. But I did like the way he went up for the ball.

TheEastwood
09-10-2012, 02:30 PM
The ball came out when he hit the ground. By rule the reciever has to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the catch. It was a good call by the Refs.

ChrisG
09-10-2012, 02:31 PM
My feeling is if a runner crosses the goal line and gets tackled and drops the ball it is still a TD. As soon as the ball crosses it is a TD. For passes once you have pocession and two feet down it should be a TD.

EllisUnit
09-10-2012, 02:34 PM
It wasn't a catch. The ball came out when he hit the ground. The Calvin Johnson rule. But I did like the way he went up for the ball.

DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

gtexan02
09-10-2012, 02:37 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ground can absolutely cause an incompletion. You see a guy go up and then land with both feed down and immediately get blown up by a DB and the ball comes out, thats an incompletion, not a fumble

Jackie Chiles
09-10-2012, 02:37 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ground can absolutely cause an incompletion. That was a no doubt incompletion because the ball came out immediately after hitting the ground. Dumb challenge. Also, you need more !!!!!!! when you make an incorrect assumption.

Vinny
09-10-2012, 02:37 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!
the ground can certainly cause an incompletion.

jaayteetx
09-10-2012, 02:38 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, you read the rules, we're not talking about a fumble here, we're talking about a reception, he has to "complete" the catch, like a previous poster said, think Calvin Johnson a year or two ago.

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 02:39 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Are you serious? Or did you have some of what themedic had yesterday? Man, don't start this stuff after I made the statement that we have some of the most knowledgeable posters around. The rules clearly state that you have to complete control after you go down with the football catching it in the end zone. Again, its the Calvin Johnson rule. Does it make a ton of sense? Not quite, but it is what it is.

EllisUnit
09-10-2012, 02:40 PM
On passing plays, the NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal. The rule further describes possession as the player having clear control of the football before going out of bounds. Receivers are ruled not to have possession of the ball legally if they are bobbling the football before going out of bounds.

The Calvin Johnson ruling stood, because he was not deemed to have control of the ball at any point in time.........in or out of bounds.

Jean had control of the ball at the time of having both feet in bounds. Once he was out of bounds, he still maintained possession up until he hit the ground. This should have been ruled a TD.


Courtesy of the game day thread and Cloak. Now i would love to see on the replay where he at anytime bobled the ball......he had full control until hitting the ground.

Vinny
09-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Courtesy of the game day thread and Cloak. Now i would love to see on the replay where he at anytime bobled the ball......he had full control until hitting the ground. you have to demonstrate control all the way down when catching the ball. Its a different rule if you run into the end zone with the ball.

EllisUnit
09-10-2012, 02:42 PM
you have to demonstrate control all the way down when catching the ball. Its a different rule if you run into the end zone with the ball.

Did you see him bobble the ball at all on the way down ?

Vinny
09-10-2012, 02:43 PM
Did you see him bobble the ball at all on the way down ?if you hit the ground and the ball pops out it doesn't matter.

thunderkyss
09-10-2012, 02:44 PM
The ball came out when he hit the ground. By rule the reciever has to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the catch. It was a good call by the Refs.

Only if he's hit (touched) by a defender right? I think Jacoby had one last year, where he made the catch, got two feet down, then hit the ground & lost the ball. They still called it a TD.

In that case, I think, it's like Arians first TD yesterday. As long as the ball crosses the goal line, it doesn't matter after that point.

But if a defender touches (hits) the receiver, it's an extension of the play & possession isn't decided till after he maintains control.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ω

GP
09-10-2012, 02:45 PM
The ref said the review was to see if both feet were in bounds.

Then the review comes back, and the ref states that the receiver did not control the ball all the way through the reception.

So let me ask something...now that all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, it doesn't matter what the coach or ref wants to look for (i.e. "two feet down inside the chalk line") the automatic review takes ALL things into consideration, and any one thing that overturns the TD ruling can be applied to the review in question. Right?

Because at first, when the ref said the review was to check for two fee down inside the chalk line...I was thinking "We got this. His feet were down, but he didn't control the ball all the way through, but they're only looking at both feet being down...not the complete possession of the ball."

So it doesn't matter of the ref makes an initial statement, does it? Whatever happens in the review booth, it can overrule what the ref states they're looking for.

thunderkyss
09-10-2012, 02:46 PM
The ground can absolutely cause an incompletion. That was a no doubt incompletion because the ball came out immediately after hitting the ground. Dumb challenge. Also, you need more !!!!!!! when you make an incorrect assumption.

Well, it looked like he wasn't touched by the defender. I think that was the difference, that the defender "touched" him. If not for that, it's a touchdown once his feet come down.

NastyNate
09-10-2012, 02:47 PM
I think their decision was that his feet were in but the ball was bobbled/not controlled.

Aha, thanks. We couldn't really make out the continuation of the play on the big screen, was thinking that was the only way it could have possibly be ruled an incompletion. They need to change that damn rule, I feel it's ridiculous.

Allstar
09-10-2012, 02:47 PM
DUDE the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like to point out that the ground can definitely cause an incompletion.

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 02:49 PM
The ref said the review was to see if both feet were in bounds.

Then the review comes back, and the ref states that the receiver did not control the ball all the way through the reception.

So let me ask something...now that all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, it doesn't matter what the coach or ref wants to look for (i.e. "two feet down inside the chalk line") the automatic review takes ALL things into consideration, and any one thing that overturns the TD ruling can be applied to the review in question. Right?

Because at first, when the ref said the review was to check for two fee down inside the chalk line...I was thinking "We got this. His feet were down, but he didn't control the ball all the way through, but they're only looking at both feet being down...not the complete possession of the ball."

So it doesn't matter of the ref makes an initial statement, does it? Whatever happens in the review booth, it can overrule what the ref states they're looking for.

If the referee sees anything during the review process outside of a penalty that should be called then he can overturn it.

EllisUnit
09-10-2012, 02:50 PM
NOt TOUCHED ???????

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000059655/Schaub-TD-pass-called-a-drop

Jackie Chiles
09-10-2012, 02:51 PM
Well, it looked like he wasn't touched by the defender. I think that was the difference, that the defender "touched" him. If not for that, it's a touchdown once his feet come down.

I disagree. If the Dolphins had 10 men on the field and Lestar was running by himself down the sideline and made the exact same play its still an incompletion. The second I saw that ball crawling around underneath him I KNEW it was a futile challenge.

The Pencil Neck
09-10-2012, 02:52 PM
Any good link to a replay? From the stands it defnitely looked like a TD. Was sitting next to two Dolphins fans who even said the same. Thoughts for those that watched it on their huge HD screens?

Unless they changed the rules (and they might have, they were talking about that at one point), it's an incomplete pass.

If you catch a ball in the end zone while you're going to the ground, you have to come up with the football. Even though Jean got his feet in, he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. Therefore, incomplete.

Unless, like I said, they change the rules.

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 02:53 PM
Unless they changed the rules (and they might have, they were talking about that at one point), it's an incomplete pass.

If you catch a ball in the end zone while you're going to the ground, you have to come up with the football. Even though Jean got his feet in, he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. Therefore, incomplete.

Unless, like I said, they change the rules.

They haven't. They considered changing the rule last year, but decided against it.

UberDork
09-10-2012, 02:55 PM
Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 seems to say incomplete to me. Doesn't seem that possession was undoubtedly established...

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf

HOU-TEX
09-10-2012, 02:55 PM
NOt TOUCHED ???????

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000059655/Schaub-TD-pass-called-a-drop

What does not being touched have anything to do with the play? He was unable to follow through with the catch after hitting the ground. Incomplete...period.

If Kubiak would've waited another second or two he would've seen it on replay. It can't get any more obvious than the ball being on the ground

The Pencil Neck
09-10-2012, 02:56 PM
Only if he's hit (touched) by a defender right? I think Jacoby had one last year, where he made the catch, got two feet down, then hit the ground & lost the ball. They still called it a TD.

In that case, I think, it's like Arians first TD yesterday. As long as the ball crosses the goal line, it doesn't matter after that point.

But if a defender touches (hits) the receiver, it's an extension of the play & possession isn't decided till after he maintains control.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ω

In Jacoby's case (iirc), they said he had possession BEFORE ENTERING the end zone. If you have possession before entering the end zone and enter the end zone, then it's a TD as soon as the ball breaks the plane.

BUT...

If you catch the ball in the end zone and you're falling as you catch it, then you have to display control of the ball through the contact with the ground. In other words, you have to come up with it.

Jean didn't come up with it. Incomplete.

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 seems to say incomplete to me. Doesn't seem that possession was undoubtedly established...



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf

Thanks Uber....... I was too lazy to look up the actual rule, but we've had enough cases in the NFL to know it wasn't a catch.

RCPM
09-10-2012, 03:03 PM
Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 seems to say incomplete to me. Doesn't seem that possession was undoubtedly established...



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf

there you go ellis, read the rules.....

utahmark
09-10-2012, 03:04 PM
The ref said the review was to see if both feet were in bounds.

Then the review comes back, and the ref states that the receiver did not control the ball all the way through the reception.

So let me ask something...now that all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, it doesn't matter what the coach or ref wants to look for (i.e. "two feet down inside the chalk line") the automatic review takes ALL things into consideration, and any one thing that overturns the TD ruling can be applied to the review in question. Right?

Because at first, when the ref said the review was to check for two fee down inside the chalk line...I was thinking "We got this. His feet were down, but he didn't control the ball all the way through, but they're only looking at both feet being down...not the complete possession of the ball."

So it doesn't matter of the ref makes an initial statement, does it? Whatever happens in the review booth, it can overrule what the ref states they're looking for.

It's never mattered. Once there is a challenge they can look at any aspect of the play that is reviewable. It's always been that way.

ChampionTexan
09-10-2012, 03:06 PM
Courtesy of the game day thread and Cloak. Now i would love to see on the replay where he at anytime bobled the ball......he had full control until hitting the ground.

First, the gameday thread isn't exactly considered an authoritative source. Secondly, in this case, it's incorrect - or at least incomplete given the circumstances involved.

A quick refresher - the Calvin Johnson rule is called the Calvin Johnson rule because the following catch prompted review of the existing rule:

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ol2fuo5p5c)

But the real reason it's called the Calvin Johnson rule is because reviewing the rule as it related to that catch caused them to reaffirm the existing rule (which ruled it a non-catch).

Here's a comment on the Calvin Johnson "catch" stated in the best way I can find to explain Jean's catch/non-catch yesterday

"That play will still be incomplete," Mara, a member of the competition committee, told Newsday, via PFT.

"If you read the rule, it's not a catch. The reason it's not a catch is you've got to control the ball when you hit the ground. It makes it easier to officiate. It's a bright line that you can draw."
LINK (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/nfl-will-not-make-changes-to-the-calvin-johnson-rule/1#.UE5F0a7Nk4w)

It didn't matter if he had control on the way down - it didn't matter whether he was touched or not touched, it didn't matter that both feet were in bounds, he didn't control the ball when he hit the ground. Close call - and I can see it being upheld upon review if they'd called it a TD on the field, but there absolutely wasn't evidence to overturn the ruling of non-catch (even if the initial ruling was for the incorrect reason).

Premier
09-10-2012, 03:12 PM
im more amazed at how jean managed to make an over the shoulder catch against his body, he trapped it against his chest despite having his back to schaub..

the rules for this type of play have been inconsistent to say the least. lestar will probably say he should have held onto the football.. imo, players should have to maintain possession through the entire process. sometimes the steps in the process are different, but it should always end with full secured possession of the football.. i dont like that the endzone and field of play seem to have different rules, the endzone seems to have a much smaller timeframe for whats considered a possession. put lestars play inbounds around the 30 and its no doubt an incomplete pass..

Perki-Perk
09-10-2012, 04:28 PM
Dude, you read the rules, we're not talking about a fumble here, we're talking about a reception, he has to "complete" the catch, like a previous poster said, think Calvin Johnson a year or two ago.

Or even Arian Foster last year...

NastyNate
09-10-2012, 05:01 PM
Unless they changed the rules (and they might have, they were talking about that at one point), it's an incomplete pass.

If you catch a ball in the end zone while you're going to the ground, you have to come up with the football. Even though Jean got his feet in, he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. Therefore, incomplete.

Unless, like I said, they change the rules.

I'm aware of the rule, quite a bit more knowledgable than the average fair weather fan, just didn't have a good angle to see him as he went to the ground (opposite endzone, replay was cut short at the stadium).

Thanks though,
Nate

Big Lou
09-10-2012, 05:12 PM
First, the gameday thread isn't exactly considered an authoritative source. Secondly, in this case, it's incorrect - or at least incomplete given the circumstances involved.

A quick refresher - the Calvin Johnson rule is called the Calvin Johnson rule because the following catch prompted review of the existing rule:

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ol2fuo5p5c)

But the real reason it's called the Calvin Johnson rule is because reviewing the rule as it related to that catch caused them to reaffirm the existing rule (which ruled it a non-catch).

Here's a comment on the Calvin Johnson "catch" stated in the best way I can find to explain Jean's catch/non-catch yesterday


LINK (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/nfl-will-not-make-changes-to-the-calvin-johnson-rule/1#.UE5F0a7Nk4w)

It didn't matter if he had control on the way down - it didn't matter whether he was touched or not touched, it didn't matter that both feet were in bounds, he didn't control the ball when he hit the ground. Close call - and I can see it being upheld upon review if they'd called it a TD on the field, but there absolutely wasn't evidence to overturn the ruling of non-catch (even if the initial ruling was for the incorrect reason).

I thought they changed to rule so that CJ's catch/incompletion would be ruled as a TD in the future, guess I was wrong.

I always hated that because AJ got screwed in San Diego years ago. Of course we got our asses kicked anyway so it probably didn't matter.

Playoffs
09-10-2012, 05:17 PM
Man, that was a frikkin perfect pass by Schaub! :clap:

CloakNNNdagger
09-10-2012, 05:24 PM
I thought they changed to rule so that CJ's catch/incompletion would be ruled as a TD in the future, guess I was wrong.

I always hated that because AJ got screwed in San Diego years ago. Of course we got our asses kicked anyway so it probably didn't matter.

Interesting editorial about the Calvin Johnson Rule by the senior business administrator for RotoExperts

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/nfl/nfl-analysis-calvin-johnson-rule-sucks

thunderkyss
09-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Here's the words from the 2011 rule book (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf)
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an
opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender
causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball
remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch
beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a
catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.
Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players
retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an
opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such
players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.
Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of
bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground
inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

There is a lot of jiber-jaber going on there & it's "difficult" to determine what applies. According to my simple grasp of the English language, the parts that "apply" says it was a catch.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe the 2012 rule book is different. But, if you ask me, that was a catch. Anything that happens in the end-zone after possession is established is irrelevant.

The Cush
09-10-2012, 06:46 PM
AJ Green just made a nice leaping catch, took two steps, got tackled with his knee hitting the ground and the ball came out and they called it incomplete. That looked like a legitimate catch. The Jean catch I can see why it's an incompletion because his catch and fall to the ground where the ball popped out was really all in one act.

thunderkyss
09-10-2012, 06:57 PM
Well, that "catch" by Bolden was not a catch.

Allstar
09-10-2012, 07:18 PM
Well, that "catch" by Bolden was not a catch.

difference being it was ruled a TD, and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

UberDork
09-10-2012, 09:00 PM
There is a lot of jiber-jaber going on there & it's "difficult" to determine what applies. According to my simple grasp of the English language, the parts that "apply" says it was a catch.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe the 2012 rule book is different. But, if you ask me, that was a catch. Anything that happens in the end-zone after possession is established is irrelevant.

If you you look at Rule 11 on scoring, it refers back to Rule 3 Section 2 Article 7, which in turn talks about the ball coming out due to the ground in Note 2... Regardless, it's definitely a convoluted way of defining a rule!

BlueSteel
09-10-2012, 10:23 PM
Only if he's hit (touched) by a defender right? I think Jacoby had one last year, where he made the catch, got two feet down, then hit the ground & lost the ball. They still called it a TD.

In that case, I think, it's like Arians first TD yesterday. As long as the ball crosses the goal line, it doesn't matter after that point.

But if a defender touches (hits) the receiver, it's an extension of the play & possession isn't decided till after he maintains control.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ω

The one you are thinking of by Jacoby last season shouldn't have been a catch. I remember watching that replay and the announcers even mentioned it shouldn't have counted since he did not maintan control.

Arian had a touchdown because he ran the ball until he broke the plane of the endzone.

When it comes to pass plays they have to determine if the ball was actually caught. The point that is determined is when the player controls the ball through to the ground. They have to draw the line somewhere, that just happens to be where it is.

Not a new rule or anything.

I hate to open this can of worms, but I am still pissed about the Ryan Moats play where he rolled over Sessions out of bounds and he was not classified as out of bounds because he was not touching the ground even though Sessions was. That one annoyed me to no end. :)

infantrycak
09-10-2012, 10:54 PM
The one you are thinking of by Jacoby last season shouldn't have been a catch. I remember watching that replay and the announcers even mentioned it shouldn't have counted since he did not maintan control.

Officials made the correct call. You do not have to maintain possession through multiple contacts with the ground. JJ clearly had possession through contact with the ground and then was knocked over a 2nd time by a defender. The completion was done and the TD made once he made it through the 1st contact with the ground. The head of officiating even explained the play as a contrast on the NFL Network.

BlueSteel
09-10-2012, 11:01 PM
Officials made the correct call. You do not have to maintain possession through multiple contacts with the ground. JJ clearly had possession through contact with the ground and then was knocked over a 2nd time by a defender. The completion was done and the TD made once he made it through the 1st contact with the ground. The head of officiating even explained the play as a contrast on the NFL Network.

If I had time to watch as much football as I used to I am sure I would have seen the detailed explination last year. My schedule is reardedly busy now days. I do at least have ime for Football on Sundays though. :)

Thanks for the clarification.

Premier
09-10-2012, 11:26 PM
are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAMA1TbY0&playnext=1&list=PL1E49F75B7C8CA22F&feature=results_main

Texn4life
09-10-2012, 11:28 PM
are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAMA1TbY0&playnext=1&list=PL1E49F75B7C8CA22F&feature=results_main

i dont believe that was a catch even though it was ruled one and even reviewed. the nfl needs to be more strict about guys securing the ball all the way through to the end of the play..

I didn't think it was a catch either since I've seen other similar catches overturned. I was happy it went in our favor though.

infantrycak
09-10-2012, 11:31 PM
are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

Yes and I don't see how that is even close to not being a completion.

Premier
09-10-2012, 11:32 PM
I didn't think it was a catch either since I've seen other similar catches overturned. I was happy it went in our favor though.

actually now that i watched it i think his knee hits first then he is pulled over by cortland and loses the ball the second time he hits the ground.. so maybe i was wrong and i see why they called it a catch.. i still would like to see receivers required to maintain possession until the end of the play..

BlueSteel
09-11-2012, 05:22 AM
are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAMA1TbY0&playnext=1&list=PL1E49F75B7C8CA22F&feature=results_main

Yeah, that was the one I was refering to!

I can honestly say I am not missing Jacoby! :)

HOU-TEX
09-11-2012, 08:54 AM
AJ Green just made a nice leaping catch, took two steps, got tackled with his knee hitting the ground and the ball came out and they called it incomplete. That looked like a legitimate catch. The Jean catch I can see why it's an incompletion because his catch and fall to the ground where the ball popped out was really all in one act.

Agreed. Shoulda been a catch. Maybe Marvin was weery throwing the challenge flag due to scab refs? Who knows.

It was much closer to a catch than Boldins

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 10:37 AM
Here's the words from the 2011 rule book (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf)


There is a lot of jiber-jaber going on there & it's "difficult" to determine what applies. According to my simple grasp of the English language, the parts that "apply" says it was a catch.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe the 2012 rule book is different. But, if you ask me, that was a catch. Anything that happens in the end-zone after possession is established is irrelevant.

You're reading it wrong and you're picking out the wrong stuff.

First, look at Item 3 (the part you indented but look at the whole thing):

Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.


The NOTE says that if the guy catches the ball and THEN the defender knocks it loose, it's a touchdown while in the field of play, it would be a fumble... because the receiver just has to possess the ball in the endzone for it to be a TD.

The important part is the CONTROLS THE BALL part and since this was a catch on the sideline, it involves item 2:

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.


And this is what happened. Jean was making a sideline catch and did not maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. He dropped the ball and left it on the ground.

thunderkyss
09-11-2012, 10:51 AM
actually now that i watched it i think his knee hits first then he is pulled over by cortland and loses the ball the second time he hits the ground.. so maybe i was wrong and i see why they called it a catch.. i still would like to see receivers required to maintain possession until the end of the play..

Yeah, that's the one. Two years ago, not one. My bad.

But I think it's clear he had possession before going into the endzone & that makes the most sense to me as an explanation. He's got two feet down, gets thrown into the end zone, knee goes down, then thrown to the ground.

Either way, totally different situation from the one we're talking about.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 12:12 PM
This really isn't that complicated. Given the number of times this rule has been applied by replay officials the last few years and the ensuing brouhaha from football fans apoplectic about it, I am surprised so many Texans fans think that Jean play was a catch.

I told Ellis in real time in the game zone it wasn't a catch. I immediately knew it wasn't a catch because Jean was going to the ground and did not control the ball throughout after contacting the ground. Crystal freakin clear. I was and still am critical of the coaching staff for wasting a timeout and a challenge on such an obviously correct decision by the officials, regardless of their initial reasoning. Yes, he got his feet inbounds but it doesn't matter if you don't control the ball after hitting the ground.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 12:17 PM
For the love of Tebow, can we PLEASE get someone in the booth who can give better red flag advice to Kubiak? He is :toropalm: at that.

Quick II Draw
09-11-2012, 12:17 PM
Control after the catch? What's that mean?

:gamer::homer::homer::homer::gamer:

Yankee_In_TX
09-11-2012, 12:24 PM
This really isn't that complicated. Given the number of times this rule has been applied by replay officials the last few years and the ensuing brouhaha from football fans apoplectic about it, I am surprised so many Texans fans think that Jean play was a catch.

It is NOT that simple. I remember after the Megatron call there were a few within a few weeks, I think even AJ with one and OD with one. Which were dissected and explanations disagreed.

Here are a few factors that changing one could change the ruling:
(1) ball caught in endzone or before enzone
(2) player contacted by defender or not
(3) amount of time ball is possessed while on the ground before it comes loose
(4) player is down inbounds or out of bounds

I am sure there are more I am not thinking of.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 12:53 PM
It is NOT that simple. I remember after the Megatron call there were a few within a few weeks, I think even AJ with one and OD with one. Which were dissected and explanations disagreed.

Here are a few factors that changing one could change the ruling:
(1) ball caught in endzone or before enzone
(2) player contacted by defender or not
(3) amount of time ball is possessed while on the ground before it comes loose
(4) player is down inbounds or out of bounds

I am sure there are more I am not thinking of.

It really isn't, and those factors you're listing don't change the ruling in any way. It's about the entire process of going to the ground, and where a player is on the field of play doesn't change the fact that it's a process play and that's what dictates the ruling.

Rey
09-11-2012, 01:17 PM
This is not a hard process at all. Folks want to make it more difficult than it is.

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 02:20 PM
This is not a hard process at all. Folks want to make it more difficult than it is.

I think mostly we fans want the rule to change in our favor when we're catching the ball and then in our favor when we're on defense. :)

My wife was ticked. She was like "His feet were in!" and I was like "He didn't catch the ball with his feet. Or his hands, for that matter."

Then she hit me.

Yankee_In_TX
09-11-2012, 02:55 PM
It really isn't, and those factors you're listing don't change the ruling in any way. It's about the entire process of going to the ground, and where a player is on the field of play doesn't change the fact that it's a process play and that's what dictates the ruling.

Wrong. I wish I could pull up the videos from years ago. They had Mike Pereira when he was still with the League on NFLN explain two of these (seemingly identical) plays. There were a few subtle things he explained as to why one was a touchdown and one was incomplete (in both cases the pass was dropped).

If someone wants to get really industrious, there are threads on here some where.

(granted Jean was incomplete, I'm just saying endzone catches are not that simple)

Rey
09-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Wrong.

What's wrong about what he said?

He's right...

Being in the endzone doesn't change the fact that you have to maintain possession when going to the ground or out of bounds.

Once your momentum stops or after your initial contact with the ground you have to have possesion. I don't know if it says that in the official rule book, but that's basically what it is when judging catches going to the ground or falling out of bounds.

Yankee_In_TX
09-11-2012, 03:15 PM
What's wrong about what he said?

He's right...

Being in the endzone doesn't change the fact that you have to maintain possession when going to the ground or out of bounds.

He said none of those factors affect the ruling whether it is incomplete or a TD but that's not correct. Shortly after the Megatron ruling there were similar plays that were labeled TDs. The explanations given were tiny little subtle differences (maybe made up to CYA?).

Texanmike02
09-11-2012, 03:15 PM
At first glance I thought it was incomplete because the ball came out end of play but I watched it a few times and I think I have changed my mind. Once Jean is down with two feet in the end zone and touched by a player he has established possession. Otherwise on every play in the end zone you could just mollywhop any receiver and hope that when they fall down and hit the ground out of bounds that they drop it. Had jean not been touched and gone to the ground I can see the whole possession issue but he was forced to the ground. In the field of play the DB can force someone out of bounds etc but once he taps both feet and then gets touched isn't the play over?

Kind of changing my mind here because Jean goes to the ground as a result of contact from a player in bounds.

Mike

Rey
09-11-2012, 03:20 PM
He said none of those factors affect the ruling whether it is incomplete or a TD but that's not correct. Shortly after the Megatron ruling there were similar plays that were labeled TDs. The explanations given were tiny little subtle differences (maybe made up to CYA?).

I think Megatron's play would have been a TD had he not gone to the ground and used the ground as a brace with the hand he had the ball in.


I think he had control of it, but you can argue that he used the ground control the ball..

Anyways....I don't want to get too much into it over this...Both of you guys made some good points..

Yankee_In_TX
09-11-2012, 03:21 PM
I think Megatron's play would have been a TD had he not gone to the ground and used the ground as a brace with the hand he had the ball in.


I think he had control of it, but you can argue that he used the ground control the ball..

Anyways....I don't want to get too much into it over this...Both of you guys made some good points..

Oh, I'm not saying he is wrong on the rules, I am saying he is wrong on the League's interpretation of the rule over the last 5ish years. They've really mucked it up, again, maybe to CYA inconsistent calls...?

Rey
09-11-2012, 03:22 PM
In the field of play the DB can force someone out of bounds etc but once he taps both feet and then gets touched isn't the play over?

Mike

No...

No matter where you are if you are going to the ground you have to maintain possesion through your fall and after your initial contact with the ground. Even if you catch it in bounds, tap your feet and get pushed out...

Jean's momentum hadn't even stopped before the ball started moving around.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 03:54 PM
Wrong. I wish I could pull up the videos from years ago. They had Mike Pereira when he was still with the League on NFLN explain two of these (seemingly identical) plays. There were a few subtle things he explained as to why one was a touchdown and one was incomplete (in both cases the pass was dropped).

If someone wants to get really industrious, there are threads on here some where.

(granted Jean was incomplete, I'm just saying endzone catches are not that simple)

I think you're likely conflating two distinct concepts about what constitutes a catch. Where the receiver makes the catch--sideline, out of bounds, end zone, in the field of play---is immaterial if the receiver is going to the ground in the act of making the reception. The rule is clear on that point. Where the rule book mentions sideline and end zone and whatnot it is only for the purposes of clarity. Those are subsets, i.e. notes, about the overriding principle at play.

On the other hand, if the receiver makes a catch where he isn't going to the ground, but gets knocked to the ground and fumbles AFTER crossing the goal line, that's ruled a TD catch because he did enough to demonstrate possession, and it's not a fumble because the ball has crossed the goal line.

My guess is you're confusing plays where a receiver is going to the ground at the outset with ones where he isn't, but then gets knocked to the ground by a defender. It's in those latter situations that the end zone factor comes into play.

Yankee_In_TX
09-11-2012, 04:03 PM
My guess is you're confusing plays where a receiver is going to the ground at the outset with ones where he isn't, but then gets knocked to the ground by a defender. It's in those latter situations that the end zone factor comes into play.

See, not that simple :)

Mailman
09-11-2012, 04:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc

Pretty good explanation here.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 04:18 PM
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I really want to know what the f Kubiak was thinking on that particular play. For those of you at the game, did the replay on the big screen not show the ball on the ground after Lestar rolled over? From my sofa at home it was totally obvious that it wasn't a catch because he didn't control it throughout.

Was Kubiak challenging the call based on the crowd response, what he was being told from the booth, or from what he saw on the replay screen? Surely he knows the rule. Right?

Rey
09-11-2012, 04:25 PM
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I really want to know what the f Kubiak was thinking on that particular play. For those of you at the game, did the replay on the big screen not show the ball on the ground after Lestar rolled over? From my sofa at home it was totally obvious that it wasn't a catch because he didn't control it throughout.

Was Kubiak challenging the call based on the crowd response, what he was being told from the booth, or from what he saw on the replay screen? Surely he knows the rule. Right?

I don't think he saw it...

I think since the Refs called him out of bounds Kubiak was just looking at that part of it...

Mailman
09-11-2012, 04:30 PM
I don't think he saw it...

I think since the Refs called him out of bounds Kubiak was just looking at that part of it...

That makes sense, but where were the guys in the box who are supposed to advise him when/when not to challenge? Wasted a timeout.

ChampionTexan
09-11-2012, 04:49 PM
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I really want to know what the f Kubiak was thinking on that particular play. For those of you at the game, did the replay on the big screen not show the ball on the ground after Lestar rolled over? From my sofa at home it was totally obvious that it wasn't a catch because he didn't control it throughout.

Was Kubiak challenging the call based on the crowd response, what he was being told from the booth, or from what he saw on the replay screen? Surely he knows the rule. Right?

The ruling indicated on the field was out of bounds, and I think that's what was focused on when deciding to challenge. Fouts was calling it a TD in the announcing booth, and calling for the challenge. Lots of Kubiak's challenges can be called questionable (to put it mildly), but I don't think this is one of them. As a viewer at home, I thought it was going to be won at the time he made the challenge, because of the feet being in bounds. By the time the ruling was given, I knew it would be upheld, but that didn't make me think it was a bad challenge given the circumstances.

ChampionTexan
09-11-2012, 04:53 PM
That makes sense, but where were the guys in the box who are supposed to advise him when/when not to challenge? Wasted a timeout.

So when you were viewing at home, did you see the ball come loose before or after the challenge flag was thrown?

Mailman
09-11-2012, 05:04 PM
So when you were viewing at home, did you see the ball come loose before or after the challenge flag was thrown?

YES! Well before. Said it in the GZ.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2009335&postcount=134

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2009341&postcount=140

Grams
09-11-2012, 05:41 PM
So when you were viewing at home, did you see the ball come loose before or after the challenge flag was thrown?

It was before.

GP
09-11-2012, 06:05 PM
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I really want to know what the f Kubiak was thinking on that particular play. For those of you at the game, did the replay on the big screen not show the ball on the ground after Lestar rolled over? From my sofa at home it was totally obvious that it wasn't a catch because he didn't control it throughout.

Was Kubiak challenging the call based on the crowd response, what he was being told from the booth, or from what he saw on the replay screen? Surely he knows the rule. Right?

He was basing it on crowd response and wanting Jean to get the big TD catch, IMO.

Because I immediately knew it was going to be ruled incomplete based on how the ball popped out. Along with the Tom Brady Tuck Rule situation vs. Raiders years and years ago, the recent situation with Calvin Johnson has seared into my mind that a receiver better control the ball all the way through the play when catching it into the end zone...and Jean lost control of the ball too soon after hitting the turf.

When Kubiak threw the flag, I told my wife "He's gonna' lose a time out for that." Yup, he did.

But oh well. We didn't' need the timeout, so might as well toss the flag and challenge the refs on it. All in all, no biggie in my eyes. Nobody melted down on challenges worse than Marvin Lewis did in our game against the Bengals. He burned through all of his timeouts and had no challenges left...ouch.

Bulls on Parade
09-11-2012, 06:06 PM
I just wish Lestar Jean would have held on to the ball as he hit the ground out of bounds. He had made such a great catch just to keep both feet in the end zone. By rule it was an incomplete pass but he definitely caught the ball and maintained possession in the end zone. He simply lost it on the way down out of bounds. Oh well. Next time Jean will turn that same play into a TD. He can learn from Andre Johnson.

Mailman
09-11-2012, 06:11 PM
You are right about that, and as Gary would say.... it was a helluva play by the kid.

I'm cautiously excited to see what Lestar can do given the whispered hype following him the last two training camps. It certainly doesn't hurt that he sorta resembles #80 out there on the field.

TejasTom
09-11-2012, 06:21 PM
...

Was Kubiak challenging the call based on the crowd response, what he was being told from the booth, or from what he saw on the replay screen? Surely he knows the rule. Right?

The in stadium replay was focused on his feet, the kept going back and forth on that. They never showed the end of the play where the ball was loose until the ref was under the hood.

Posted using Tapatalk from my phone. May contain errors.

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 06:44 PM
So when you were viewing at home, did you see the ball come loose before or after the challenge flag was thrown?

I called it incomplete from the initial view at home.

But when the ref said it was ruled out of bounds, I was surprised. I half-expected them to make the wrong call if they were only looking at whether it was in-bounds or not.

If Kubiak heard the ruling as "out of bounds" and then saw the replay, I can see why he'd throw the challenge flag in that case. Someone upstairs should have said, "No. Don't throw it!" though.

thunderkyss
09-12-2012, 07:52 AM
I think mostly we fans want the rule to change in our favor when we're catching the ball and then in our favor when we're on defense. :)
.

I think there has been so much change in the interpretation of that rule that it's a little more confusing than some want to believe. When the ref announced the challenge, he said he was going to see if LeStar's feet came down in-bounds. That's what Kubiak challenged. That's probably what they were looking at in the booth when they told Kubiak to challenge.