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

Lestar Jean incompletion

Premier

Rookie
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..
 

HOU-TEX

Ah, Football!
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

Hall of Fame
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

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

Pwned by Hakeem
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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.
 

Yankee_In_TX

Dance Lindsay!
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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.
 

The Pencil Neck

Hall of Fame
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

Dance Lindsay!
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

Guest
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

Dance Lindsay!
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

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
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

Guest
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

Dance Lindsay!
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

Guest
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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

Dance Lindsay!
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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

Guest
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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

Hall of Fame
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.
 

GP

Go Texans!
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

2017 Astros: Earn It!
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

Pwned by Hakeem
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

All Pro
...

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

Hall of Fame
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

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