Lestar Jean incompletion

[NastyNate]

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]

If it is the one I am thinking about - he dropped the ball when he landed.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by NastyNate

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Texn4life

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by Vinny

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]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

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]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

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]

Originally Posted by Vinny

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.