Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Lestar Jean incompletion

NastyNate

I go kerplunk
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?
 

Vinny

shiny happy fan
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

All Pro
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

Waterboy
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

Road Fan
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

Vote RED!!!
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

Working?
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
 
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.
 

jaayteetx

All Pro
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

All Pro
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

Vote RED!!!
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

shiny happy fan
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.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
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

Go Texans!
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

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
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

I go kerplunk
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

Bona fide
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

All Pro
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.
 
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

Hall of Fame
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

All Pro
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

Waterboy
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
 

The Pencil Neck

Hall of Fame
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.
 

utahmark

markbeth
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

Hall of Fame
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

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

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

Rookie
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..
 

NastyNate

I go kerplunk
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

Hall of Fame
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

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

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.
 

CloakNNNdagger

Hall of Fame

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Here's the words from the 2011 rule book
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

Rookie
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.
 

UberDork

Waterboy
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

Waterboy
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

Hall of Fame
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

Waterboy
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.
 

Texn4life

All Pro
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.
 
Top