Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
I think their decision was that his feet were in but the ball was bobbled/not controlled.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?
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.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 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 the ground can not cause a fumble, incompletion. His knees were down both feet imbounds after having contact with the opponent. READ THE RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.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.
if you hit the ground and the ball pops out it doesn't matter.Did you see him bobble the ball at all on the way down ?
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.
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.
I think their decision was that his feet were in but the ball was bobbled/not controlled.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
LINK"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."
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.
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.
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.
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 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is aItem 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.
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.
Well, that "catch" by Bolden was not a catch.
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.
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.
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.
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..
are you guys talking about this jacoby jones play from 2 years ago??