Lestar Jean incompletion

[The Cush]

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]

Well, that "catch" by Bolden was not a catch.

[Allstar]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

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]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

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]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

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]

Originally Posted by BlueSteel

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]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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]

are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAM...e=results_main

[Texn4life]

Originally Posted by Premier

are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAM...e=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]

Originally Posted by Premier

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]

Originally Posted by Texn4life

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]

Originally Posted by Premier

are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUAM...e=results_main

Yeah, that was the one I was refering to!

I can honestly say I am not missing Jacoby!

[HOU-TEX]

Originally Posted by The Cush

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]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

Here's the words from the 2011 rule book


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]

Originally Posted by Premier

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]

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]

For the love of Tebow, can we PLEASE get someone in the booth who can give better red flag advice to Kubiak? He is at that.

[Quick II Draw]

Control after the catch? What's that mean?

[Yankee_In_TX]

Originally Posted by Mailman

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]

Originally Posted by Yankee_In_TX

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.