How can his TD on the fumble recovery not count?!?!
W_T_F_?!
[Deleted User]Mon 12/7/09 12:59 PM
Guys,
I was first to counter this scoring change to FF and had put on the table the official ruling of the NFL and their scoring system!!
Official they gave Meachem a "Fumble recovery" of 44 yards, but no points! His official scoring for WR is 1 TD.
Now I know that the Saints D should get 6 points and Meachem gets the 44 yards plus the TD, but FF weighed the ruling between ppl for and against and went for the ones that said the D shouldn't get the points!!
Bottom line to make this short ( and mind you I was in contact with them for a couple hours) We as commishes can OVERIDE their decision and change the scoring to fit the NFL ruling.
There is a problem with that too as if you do change it, you will get a uprising in your league as MOST leagues are public and aren't too tight with each other and all the sudden you have owners drop out!!
I even tried to make it fair to them to kill the play if it was causing too much confusion to owners and such, but they stated this is final and put the ball in our court!!
Bottom line FF changed it and thats it! I believe its fair to do in fairness to owners and left it to commishes to change the way they want!
A few things we would like to address really quickly (precedent is addressed here, too) to answer this and hopefully make it a moot point when done.
1) We based our ruling for fantasy purposes, and the majority of our owners agree that when a Defense is drafted, it is for purposes of gaining points for players on that Defense or Special Teams; that team is not expected to get points when the respective team's offensive unit is on the field. Therefore, we ruled this from a fantasy player's perspective.
2) Here is the precedent that we keep referring to: When a team begins a play on offense with the intent to make an offensive play (so, no punts from a shotgun) for fantasy purposes any subsequent changes in possession as ruled by the NFL are ignored. In Week 1 of this year, the Jets played the Texans and we had a similar play and set the precedent for further rulings after this:
M.Sanchez pass short left intended for D.Keller INTERCEPTED by J.Busing at HST 38. J.Busing to NYJ 48 for 14 yards (D.Keller). FUMBLES (D.Keller), recovered by HST-D.Barber at NYJ 48. D.Barber for 48 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PENALTY on NYJ-M.Sanchez, Low Block, 15 yards, enforced between downs.
To spell it out even further:
1. sanchez intercetpion by texans
2. texans fumbles
3. jets recover - the change of possession happened here but the texans were never considered on DEFENSE for Fantasy Purposes
4. jet fumbles
5. texan recovers, runs it in for a TD - Points given to the Texan defense even though the possession changed - the Jets were never considered "defensive" at any point throughout the play. It was ruled a defensive TD for the Texans as opposed to an offensive TD (even with the change of possession)
I hope this finally concludes the questions on the topic. Once again, it is a matter of interpretation and the Flea team decided to follow this one. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at any time.
The play youve mentioned below occurs at the 2:18 mark of the video. In it, youll see that steps three and four of the scenario you list below never happened. The interceptor fumbled the ball, but it was immediately picked up by another Texan and returned for a score. The Jets never regained possession of the ball at any time after Houston intercepted the ball. Your text description of the play backs this up. Busing picks off the ball, fumbles it, and Barber picks it up for Houston and returns it the rest of the way. This is not the same as what happened with the Saints at all. The Colts-Bucs game from 2003 has the exact same play, and FF ruled that a defensive touchdown.
Again, I hope that with this example youll raise this issue again with the site manager. If hes using the Texans play as his precedent, and not the Bucs, hes got his signals mistakenly crossed.
hostileSun 12/6/09 2:48 PM
How can his TD on the fumble recovery not count?!?!
W_T_F_?!
[Deleted User]Mon 12/7/09 12:59 PM
Guys,
I was first to counter this scoring change to FF and had put on the table the official ruling of the NFL and their scoring system!!
Official they gave Meachem a "Fumble recovery" of 44 yards, but no points! His official scoring for WR is 1 TD.
Now I know that the Saints D should get 6 points and Meachem gets the 44 yards plus the TD, but FF weighed the ruling between ppl for and against and went for the ones that said the D shouldn't get the points!!
Bottom line to make this short ( and mind you I was in contact with them for a couple hours) We as commishes can OVERIDE their decision and change the scoring to fit the NFL ruling.
There is a problem with that too as if you do change it, you will get a uprising in your league as MOST leagues are public and aren't too tight with each other and all the sudden you have owners drop out!!
I even tried to make it fair to them to kill the play if it was causing too much confusion to owners and such, but they stated this is final and put the ball in our court!!
Bottom line FF changed it and thats it! I believe its fair to do in fairness to owners and left it to commishes to change the way they want!
Rick
FleaMod AdminMon 12/7/09 2:21 PM
Thanks, Rick.
Guys:
A few things we would like to address really quickly (precedent is addressed here, too) to answer this and hopefully make it a moot point when done.
1) We based our ruling for fantasy purposes, and the majority of our owners agree that when a Defense is drafted, it is for purposes of gaining points for players on that Defense or Special Teams; that team is not expected to get points when the respective team's offensive unit is on the field. Therefore, we ruled this from a fantasy player's perspective.
2) Here is the precedent that we keep referring to: When a team begins a play on offense with the intent to make an offensive play (so, no punts from a shotgun) for fantasy purposes any subsequent changes in possession as ruled by the NFL are ignored. In Week 1 of this year, the Jets played the Texans and we had a similar play and set the precedent for further rulings after this:
M.Sanchez pass short left intended for D.Keller INTERCEPTED by J.Busing at HST 38. J.Busing to NYJ 48 for 14 yards (D.Keller). FUMBLES (D.Keller), recovered by HST-D.Barber at NYJ 48. D.Barber for 48 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PENALTY on NYJ-M.Sanchez, Low Block, 15 yards, enforced between downs.
To spell it out even further:
1. sanchez intercetpion by texans
2. texans fumbles
3. jets recover - the change of possession happened here but the texans were never considered on DEFENSE for Fantasy Purposes
4. jet fumbles
5. texan recovers, runs it in for a TD - Points given to the Texan defense even though the possession changed - the Jets were never considered "defensive" at any point throughout the play. It was ruled a defensive TD for the Texans as opposed to an offensive TD (even with the change of possession)
I hope this finally concludes the questions on the topic. Once again, it is a matter of interpretation and the Flea team decided to follow this one. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at any time.
Hoosier-DaddyMon 12/7/09 2:33 PM
I went back to the NFL.com site and watched the film of the Texans-Jets game.
nfl.com
The play youve mentioned below occurs at the 2:18 mark of the video. In it, youll see that steps three and four of the scenario you list below never happened. The interceptor fumbled the ball, but it was immediately picked up by another Texan and returned for a score. The Jets never regained possession of the ball at any time after Houston intercepted the ball. Your text description of the play backs this up. Busing picks off the ball, fumbles it, and Barber picks it up for Houston and returns it the rest of the way. This is not the same as what happened with the Saints at all. The Colts-Bucs game from 2003 has the exact same play, and FF ruled that a defensive touchdown.
Again, I hope that with this example youll raise this issue again with the site manager. If hes using the Texans play as his precedent, and not the Bucs, hes got his signals mistakenly crossed.
Regards,
Mike