What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is an onside kick recovery considered a fumble recovery? (1 Viewer)

super sleeper

super sleeper

Footballguy
I'm sure most of you know what play I am referring to:

Dallas Cowboys at 00:20

(Onside Kick formation) 6-N.Folk kicks onside 23 yards from DAL 30 to BUF 47, impetus ends at DAL 41. RECOVERED by DAL-89-T.Curtis. Ball traveled more than 10 yds. before first touch. The Replay Assistant challenged the kick touched ruling, and the play was Upheld.

Yet in my CBS league, here is the defensive scoring:

D. Cowboys DST 24 PA, 229 YDS, Int, 3 SACK 9 (points, 4 for yardage, 2 for int, 3 for sacks)

Maybe I'm jumping the gun and they will adjust the scoring. On the live scoring there is a disclaimer "STTD will score live, but the following component of STTD will not score live: SFRTD" which seems to indicate that special teams fumble recoveries for TDs don't score live, and maybe this also includes special team recoveries not for TDS, too. But I would think by the next morning the adjustment would be made already.

Has this affected anyone else, and does anyone have any suggestions how to address it in the league? I'm the commissioner, but I don't want to just adjust a game to give me a win if it's not officially a fumble recovery, but I also don't want this stat to be changed later in the week after the stats are locked in for the game, per CBS rules.

 
cobalt_27 said:
So, who exactly fumbled the ball for it to be a fumble recovery?
Click to expand...
So you are trying to tell me that if Buffalo had touched the kickoff, it would be a FR, but since they didn't, it isn't? That's stupid. Or if it was a regular kickoff, the returner fielded the ball, ran a bit, and then fumbled, it would be scored a fumble recovery, but because they lined up in onside formation, it's not?The question is in regards to fantasy football scoring, and this is a fantasy football forum. Perhaps someone can offer me an explanation in that context, instead of seizing an opportunity for snarky comments.

 
super sleeper said:
cobalt_27 said:
So, who exactly fumbled the ball for it to be a fumble recovery?
Click to expand...
So you are trying to tell me that if Buffalo had touched the kickoff, it would be a FR, but since they didn't, it isn't? That's stupid. Or if it was a regular kickoff, the returner fielded the ball, ran a bit, and then fumbled, it would be scored a fumble recovery, but because they lined up in onside formation, it's not?The question is in regards to fantasy football scoring, and this is a fantasy football forum. Perhaps someone can offer me an explanation in that context, instead of seizing an opportunity for snarky comments.
Click to expand...
Someone has to fumble for it to be a fumble recovery.
 
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
 
super sleeper said:
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
Click to expand...
It's an onside kick and is considered a "live ball" meaning no one has possesion until someone secures the ball. That's why the kicking team can't advance the ball. Once they've recovered an onside kick, the play is dead there. It is very different than a fumble.Now if a player on the receiving team catches it securely (I think similar to the rules of possession on catching a pass), and then fumbles it, then it would be a fumble and the kicking team (now considered a defense), can recover and advance the fumble.No possession by the receiving team = no fumble recovery
 
super sleeper said:
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
Click to expand...
A punt is a change of possession kick. As soon as the punter puts his foot on the ball, the ball belongs to the receiving team. A kickoff is a free ball. It has no possession until one team gains control of the ball. The 10 yd rule is the receiving team's advantage. They can move into the 10 yard zone and be the only team to touch the ball. After the ball travels 10 yards, it is anyone's ball. That's why a kickoff / onside kick would not be considered a fumble recovery.
 
chadjohnsonfan said:
super sleeper said:
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
Click to expand...
It's an onside kick and is considered a "live ball" meaning no one has possesion until someone secures the ball. That's why the kicking team can't advance the ball. Once they've recovered an onside kick, the play is dead there. It is very different than a fumble.Now if a player on the receiving team catches it securely (I think similar to the rules of possession on catching a pass), and then fumbles it, then it would be a fumble and the kicking team (now considered a defense), can recover and advance the fumble.No possession by the receiving team = no fumble recovery
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.
 
It should be scored as +2 points for the Dallas defense. But not all systems are set up to calculate "Onside Kick Recoveries".

But then again, I think Safeties should be scored as +5 points, so................

 
super sleeper said:
cobalt_27 said:
So, who exactly fumbled the ball for it to be a fumble recovery?
Click to expand...
So you are trying to tell me that if Buffalo had touched the kickoff, it would be a FR, but since they didn't, it isn't? That's stupid. Or if it was a regular kickoff, the returner fielded the ball, ran a bit, and then fumbled, it would be scored a fumble recovery, but because they lined up in onside formation, it's not?The question is in regards to fantasy football scoring, and this is a fantasy football forum. Perhaps someone can offer me an explanation in that context, instead of seizing an opportunity for snarky comments.
Click to expand...
That's funny. I asked a question, and you said "that's stupid." And, you're the one complaining about snarkiness. :thumbdown: At any rate, it's about "possession." Put briefly, if Buffalo merely touched the ball and Dallas recovered, it still wouldn't be a fumble recovery...because Buffalo never had possession. But, if a Buffalo player picked up the ball, established possession, and then fumbled it, that would be a FR.

Snarky comments aside, if you bothered to take a deep breath and consider this, it would answer your fantasy-related question, as well as broaden your understanding of these types of situations more generally. There's a reason you're not getting any fantasy points for a FR. And, it has something to do with the rules on how they apply the statistics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First time in 10+ years of fantasy obsession that I heard anyone talking about points for an onside kick. No way would that be a fumble recovery.

 
I actually would like a clarification on the muffed punt scenario. This is considered it's own unique thing, right? I know that the recovering team can not advance that recovery. And, it's not technically scored a FR, right? The way I understand it, the player who muffs the thing doesn't get charged with a fumble lost, and the team recovering it does not receive credit for a fumble recovery. It's a turnover--and counted as such. But, it's just not placed in either of those two categories. In many ways, this is treated similarly to how the onside k/o scenario is treated.

Those are just my assumptions, but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 
super sleeper said:
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
Click to expand...
Key word: "muffed". If the opposing team never touched the ball, it can't be a fumble recovery. For example, the Bills' fake punt was a play in which the BUF special teams ended up with possession of the ball rather than giving it to DAL, but it's not a fumble recovery.
 
cobalt_27 said:
I actually would like a clarification on the muffed punt scenario. This is considered it's own unique thing, right? I know that the recovering team can not advance that recovery. And, it's not technically scored a FR, right? The way I understand it, the player who muffs the thing doesn't get charged with a fumble lost, and the team recovering it does not receive credit for a fumble recovery. It's a turnover--and counted as such. But, it's just not placed in either of those two categories. In many ways, this is treated similarly to how the onside k/o scenario is treated.Those are just my assumptions, but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Click to expand...
It depends on the settings, but the default in My Fantasy League is that a muffed punt + recovery gets counted as a fumble recovery for the defense, but that it doesn't count as a fumble lost for the player in question. Note also that muffs don't contribute to a "forced fumble" for leagues that count that stat.So if Patrick Crayton muffs a punt and it's recovered by BUF:Crayton: +0 fumbles lostBUF: +1 defensive fumble recoveryBUF: +0 forced fumbles
 
The Man Who Met Andy Griffith said:
cobalt_27 said:
I actually would like a clarification on the muffed punt scenario. This is considered it's own unique thing, right? I know that the recovering team can not advance that recovery. And, it's not technically scored a FR, right? The way I understand it, the player who muffs the thing doesn't get charged with a fumble lost, and the team recovering it does not receive credit for a fumble recovery. It's a turnover--and counted as such. But, it's just not placed in either of those two categories. In many ways, this is treated similarly to how the onside k/o scenario is treated.Those are just my assumptions, but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Click to expand...
It depends on the settings, but the default in My Fantasy League is that a muffed punt + recovery gets counted as a fumble recovery for the defense, but that it doesn't count as a fumble lost for the player in question. Note also that muffs don't contribute to a "forced fumble" for leagues that count that stat.So if Patrick Crayton muffs a punt and it's recovered by BUF:Crayton: +0 fumbles lostBUF: +1 defensive fumble recoveryBUF: +0 forced fumbles
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm thinking more in terms of how the NFL scores it.
 
I was involved in the same situation last night going against Dallas D... (thank you Lee Evans by the way for that tackle on the INT).

They originally scored it as a fumble recovery but it was adjusted this morning in my league to 0 fumbles recovered. (Fanball).

So I do not think it is actually scored as a fumble recovery.

 
It does appear, though, that the NFL recognizes a "muffed punt" as a fumble and awards the opposing team a FR if they obtain possession. This is despite the fact that you can't really argue that the receiver ever has possession of that punt. See GB-PHI game 9/9/07 as a reference point. Greg Lewis muffed the GB punt, and he was credited with both a FUMBLE and a FUMBLE LOST in that game. Interesting.

But, I know that they do not recognize kickoffs in this way.

 
super sleeper said:
3C said:
They (Bills) never possessed the ball so it's not a fumble.
Click to expand...
This makes sense from a definition standpoint, but it seems a bit unclear from a fantasy perspective, since any other scenario where a punt or kickoff is muffed and the kicking teams retains possession, the defense would be awared a FR.
Click to expand...
Punt is considered to change possession at the time of the kick. That's why the kicking team can't recover it unless the receiving team muffs it. A kickoff is a live ball and as long as it goes 10 yards anyone can possess it. So there was no fumble, fumble recovery or turnover on an onsides kick.And to the OP, the "snarky" comment was absolute truth. Who fumbled the ball for there to be a fumble recovery?
 
cobalt_27 said:
It does appear, though, that the NFL recognizes a "muffed punt" as a fumble and awards the opposing team a FR if they obtain possession. This is despite the fact that you can't really argue that the receiver ever has possession of that punt. See GB-PHI game 9/9/07 as a reference point. Greg Lewis muffed the GB punt, and he was credited with both a FUMBLE and a FUMBLE LOST in that game. Interesting.But, I know that they do not recognize kickoffs in this way.
Click to expand...
See above, a soon as the ball was kicked it became PHI's ball, and while Lewis never possessed the punt, the Eagle's did and so there had to be someone who "lost" the fumble. On a kickoff it's a live ball so until someone possesses it there is no turnover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

barackdhouse
A deep(er) dive into the 4th and 8 decision by GB in the NFC title game
2 3
Replies
134
Views
3K
Deamon
Deamon
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
travdogg
T
F
New CBS Dynasty / Couchmanagers Slow-Auction League Forming
Replies
0
Views
231
FantasyRaph
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top