A Ruling On The Robert Meachem Play (1 Viewer)

[jasvic]

An offensive team is an offensive team and a defensive team is a defensive team. A change in possession does not change that or by definition, we could never have defensive touchdowns. As soon as the defensive team came into possession of the ball, they would become the offensive team. To think that designation changes at the time of a change of possession simply defies logic the way we play the game.

Then how come the defense is penalized with giving up points in FFB if a QB (on offense) throws a pick 6? Should an offensive INT for TD not count against the defensive team since they aren't on the field?

Some league sites allow the commish to set the scoring so that ONLY points scored on the team's actual Defence count towards the final total. Any turnovers that become a TD are not counted and neither are kick/punt returns.

Back in the day, our commish would manually adjust the scoring so turnovers didn't count against the def, but we did count kick/punt returns. Since we drafted a def/ST, you got both sides of the special teams.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's Sportslines Version for those of you using their system:

Meachem also had another touchdown in the game, but it didn't count for Fantasy purposes: Brees threw an interception to Kareem Moore of the Redskins, and Moore returned it 14 yards before getting stripped by Meachem. Meachem recovered the fumble and returned it 44 yards for a score. However, CBSSports.com rules it as a defensive fumble recovery and thus a defensive touchdown for the Saints DST because technically Meachem was a defender following the change of possession. Thus, it is not considered an offensive fumble recovery even though Meachem is an offensive player by trade.

What "the" change of possession? There wasn't a "the" change of possession -- there were two changes of possession. Meachem became a defensive player after the first change of possession, then he became an offensive player after the second change of possession. When he scored, he was an offensive player.Fantasy rules don't have to follow NFL rules. Terms can be defined for fantasy purposes differently than they're defined in the NFL rulebook, and if your fantasy league wants to score Meachem's TD as a defensive touchdown under its own rules, that's perfectly OK.

But if we want to stick to the NFL rulebook: "Whenever a team is in possession of the ball, it is the offense, and at such time its opponent is the defense."

Thus as soon as the Redskins intercepted the ball, according to the NFL rules, the Redskins were on offense and the Saints were on defense. Then as soon as Meachem stripped the ball, the Saints were on offense and the Redskins were on defense.

The NFL rules use the terms "Team A" and "Team B" to describe the team that snapped the ball (or otherwise put it into play, as on a free kick) and its opponent, respectively. So the Saints were Team A during the entire play while the Redskins were Team B -- that never changed. But the teams on offense and defense switched twice during the play.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know why people are getting so confused. You either say:

A)Once on offense, always on offense. Meachem scored an offensive TD. If you give points for offensive fumble recovery TDs, give him points -- if you don't, don't. But NO DST clearly gets nothing or

B)A 'defensive TD' for fantasy purposes means 'a TD by a player who was protecting his end zone when he got the ball'. That is what we mean by the typical 'defensive TD' scored on a pick-six or fumble return. By that definition, Meachem's TD was a defensive TD and the NO DST should get the points.

Exactly right.

This whole hooey of saying 'if you count one turnover, you have to count them both' is just that -- hooey.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think some people have argued that Meachem's TD must necessarily be a defensive TD because he became a defender after the first turnover. Others are pointing out the deficiency in that argument by noting that if he became a defender after the first turnover, he became an offensive player again after the second turnover. That's not an argument in favor of scoring it as an offensive TD; it's just a refutation of an argument that it must be scored as a defensive TD.

 

[TWP]

Here's Sportslines Version for those of you using their system:

Meachem also had another touchdown in the game, but it didn't count for Fantasy purposes: Brees threw an interception to Kareem Moore of the Redskins, and Moore returned it 14 yards before getting stripped by Meachem. Meachem recovered the fumble and returned it 44 yards for a score. However, CBSSports.com rules it as a defensive fumble recovery and thus a defensive touchdown for the Saints DST because technically Meachem was a defender following the change of possession. Thus, it is not considered an offensive fumble recovery even though Meachem is an offensive player by trade.

What "the" change of possession? There wasn't a "the" change of possession -- there were two changes of possession. Meachem became a defensive player after the first change of possession, then he became an offensive player after the second change of possession. When he scored, he was an offensive player.Fantasy rules don't have to follow NFL rules. Terms can be defined for fantasy purposes differently than they're defined in the NFL rulebook, and if your fantasy league wants to score Meachem's TD as a defensive touchdown under its own rules, that's perfectly OK.

But if we want to stick to the NFL rulebook: "Whenever a team is in possession of the ball, it is the offense, and at such time its opponent is the defense."

Thus as soon as the Redskins intercepted the ball, according to the NFL rules, the Redskins were on offense and the Saints were on defense. Then as soon as Meachem stripped the ball, the Saints were on offense and the Redskins were on defense.

The NFL rules use the terms "Team A" and "Team B" to describe the team that snapped the ball (or otherwise put it into play, as on a free kick) and its opponent, respectively. So the Saints were Team A during the entire play while the Redskins were Team B -- that never changed. But the teams on offense and defense switched twice during the play.

Maurile, read my post a few up -- this is nonsense. If you want to stick to the NFL rulebook AND THE NORMAL OPERATION OF FANTASY FOOTBALL then you would score this as a Defensive TD -- just like any other Defensive TD (scored by a player defending his end zone after he takes possession of the ball -- just like Meachem).

 

[TWP]

This whole hooey of saying 'if you count one turnover, you have to count them both' is just that -- hooey.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think some people have argued that Meachem's TD must necessarily be a defensive TD because he became a defender after the first turnover. Others are pointing out the deficiency in that argument by noting that if he became a defender after the first turnover, he became on offensive player again after the second turnover. That's not an argument in favor of scoring it as an offensive TD; it's just a refutation of an argument that it must be scored as a defensive TD.

But it is not a refutation. That argument is correct. Fantasy Football generally operates by using the term 'Defensive TD' to refer to a TD by a player who was a defensive player right before he got possession of the ball. Clearly all players are offensive once they have the ball but defensive TDs are scored by players who were defensive players before they got the ball -- just like Meachem was.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile, read my post a few up -- this is nonsense. If you want to stick to the NFL rulebook AND THE NORMAL OPERATION OF FANTASY FOOTBALL then you would score this as a Defensive TD -- just like any other Defensive TD (scored by a player defending his end zone after he takes possession of the ball -- just like Meachem).

I don't think there's a single, exclusive "normal" operation of fantasy football. I think both of the options A and B you provided in your post are perfectly fine.

 

[TWP]

Maurile, read my post a few up -- this is nonsense. If you want to stick to the NFL rulebook AND THE NORMAL OPERATION OF FANTASY FOOTBALL then you would score this as a Defensive TD -- just like any other Defensive TD (scored by a player defending his end zone after he takes possession of the ball -- just like Meachem).

I don't think there's a single, exclusive "normal" operation of fantasy football. I think both of the options A and B you provided in your post are perfectly fine.

Oh I agree that A and B are both fine. But only for the reasons that I stated in my post. Only option B is in line with the NFL rulebook. But nobody says that FF has to go by the NFL rulebook, I agree. However, you cannot justify A using the 'two turnover' argument. You can ONLY justify it by using the 'once on offense, always on offense' approach. The people using the incorrect two turnover approach are confusing everyone with nonsense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This whole hooey of saying 'if you count one turnover, you have to count them both' is just that -- hooey.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think some people have argued that Meachem's TD must necessarily be a defensive TD because he became a defender after the first turnover. Others are pointing out the deficiency in that argument by noting that if he became a defender after the first turnover, he became on offensive player again after the second turnover. That's not an argument in favor of scoring it as an offensive TD; it's just a refutation of an argument that it must be scored as a defensive TD.

But it is not a refutation. That argument is correct. Fantasy Football generally operates by using the term 'Defensive TD' to refer to a TD by a player who was a defensive player right before he got possession of the ball. Clearly all players are offensive once they have the ball but defensive TDs are scored by players who were defensive players before they got the ball -- just like Meachem was.

As a matter of pure logic, the following argument is unsound even if the conclusion is correct:A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball.

Meachem became a defender after the Redskins intercepted the ball.

Therefore, Meachem's touchdown should be scored as a defensive TD.

 

[Stingdiddy]

Sorry if posted already, but, CBS states:

How is the Robert Meachem fumble recovery TD scored?

During the New Orleans Saints vs Washington Redskins game Drew Brees threw an INT to Kareem Moore of the Redskins. Moore returned the INT 14 yards and was then stripped by Robert Meachem, Meachem recovered the fumble and returned it 44 yards for a TD. This is scored as a Defensive Fumble Recovery and a Defensive TD for the Saints DST. Robert Meachem will not be awarded any fantasy points for this play, because we don't award offensive players defensive stats or defensive players offensive stats. By rule when there is a change of possession via turnover, the offensive team becomes the defense and the defense becomes the offense.

They are incorrect however. There isn't a change of possession until the whistle blows the play is dead. Per Joe's email earlier today:

From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

I hate CBS Sportsline...they're WRONG!

 

[Sarnoff]

Sorry if posted already, but, CBS states:

How is the Robert Meachem fumble recovery TD scored?

During the New Orleans Saints vs Washington Redskins game Drew Brees threw an INT to Kareem Moore of the Redskins. Moore returned the INT 14 yards and was then stripped by Robert Meachem, Meachem recovered the fumble and returned it 44 yards for a TD. This is scored as a Defensive Fumble Recovery and a Defensive TD for the Saints DST. Robert Meachem will not be awarded any fantasy points for this play, because we don't award offensive players defensive stats or defensive players offensive stats. By rule when there is a change of possession via turnover, the offensive team becomes the defense and the defense becomes the offense.

They are incorrect however. There isn't a change of possession until the whistle blows the play is dead. Per Joe's email earlier today:

From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

I hate CBS Sportsline...they're WRONG!

They also wrote:

Let's talk Meachem

There's a lot of confusion and controversy out there about the play from Sunday's Saints game at the Redskins in which Robert Meachem scored on a fumble recovery after Redskins defensive back Kareem Moore picked off Drew Brees. Meachem wasn't credited with a touchdown in Fantasy play on CBSSports.com, but instead the Saints DST was given the points. Whether you agree or not, here's our explanation:

When Moore picked off Brees, there was a change of possession. Obvious, right? As such, the Saints who were on the field became defensive players because they were attempting to stop the Redskins from scoring on the play. Meachem did just that by stripping the ball out of Moore's grasp and running it back for a touchdown. He did this as a defensive player, not an offensive player, because he was technically on defense once the change of possession occurred.

Thus, the Saints DST gets credit for the score on CBSSports.com. There's even a precedent: In 2003 Keenan McCardell did the exact same thing for the Bucs in a game against the Colts, and we rewarded the Buccaneers DST, not McCardell.

Still not convinced? Let's simplify the argument: Did Meachem catch the ball, throw the ball, take the ball on a handoff or get the ball on a lateral? In short, did he do anything that a player who plays on offense does to get Fantasy points? The answer is no. The only other way an offensive player can get credit for points in Fantasy Football is on an offensive fumble return for a touchdown, and that can only happen when the ball doesn't change possession. Again, Meachem was technically a defender at the time of the strip and thus was and is considered a part of the Saints defense, or DST.

Now, we know how seriously you all take Fantasy Football. We take Fantasy Football very seriously ourselves. That's why we confirmed the play with the Elias Sports Bureau, the official statistician of the NFL. As per the NFL, Elias does not classify touchdowns as "offensive" or "defensive." Instead, it applies how the touchdown was scored; in this case, a return following a change of possession. How could Meachem possibly get credit for something he did that had nothing to do with his offensive prowess?

Furthermore, we contacted the NFL just to make sure we were interpreting the play and its result the right way just as we said it in the second paragraph of this section. The NFL agreed that it was all correct from a rules standpoint.

If you're still confused or disappointed (or angry), we suggest you take it up with your league's commissioner. We have been made aware of some leagues that are awarding Fantasy points to Meachem, and that's certainly an option for leagues that set its own rules. For instance, if offensive fumble returns for touchdowns count in a league and that league's commissioner disagrees with our ruling and the ruling of the Elias Sports Bureau and the National Football League, then by all means the points can be credited. Some commissioners might opt to take the points away from the Saints DST because the New Orleans offense began the play and the defenders, so to speak, were on the sideline. That is an option as well -- and that's what's great about playing in customized leagues at CBSSports.com: You are in control.

Ultimately, we believe any Fantasy points given to Meachem directly for this play is unfair, and anyone -- or any Fantasy provider -- that does credit Meachem for the touchdown and the yardage clearly doesn't understand the rules of the National Football League.

 

[TWP]

This whole hooey of saying 'if you count one turnover, you have to count them both' is just that -- hooey.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think some people have argued that Meachem's TD must necessarily be a defensive TD because he became a defender after the first turnover. Others are pointing out the deficiency in that argument by noting that if he became a defender after the first turnover, he became on offensive player again after the second turnover. That's not an argument in favor of scoring it as an offensive TD; it's just a refutation of an argument that it must be scored as a defensive TD.

But it is not a refutation. That argument is correct. Fantasy Football generally operates by using the term 'Defensive TD' to refer to a TD by a player who was a defensive player right before he got possession of the ball. Clearly all players are offensive once they have the ball but defensive TDs are scored by players who were defensive players before they got the ball -- just like Meachem was.

As a matter of pure logic, the following argument is unsound even if the conclusion is correct:A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball.

Meachem became a defender after the Redskins intercepted the ball.

Therefore, Meachem's touchdown should be scored as a defensive TD.

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD

 

[Stingdiddy]

This whole hooey of saying 'if you count one turnover, you have to count them both' is just that -- hooey.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think some people have argued that Meachem's TD must necessarily be a defensive TD because he became a defender after the first turnover. Others are pointing out the deficiency in that argument by noting that if he became a defender after the first turnover, he became on offensive player again after the second turnover. That's not an argument in favor of scoring it as an offensive TD; it's just a refutation of an argument that it must be scored as a defensive TD.

But it is not a refutation. That argument is correct. Fantasy Football generally operates by using the term 'Defensive TD' to refer to a TD by a player who was a defensive player right before he got possession of the ball. Clearly all players are offensive once they have the ball but defensive TDs are scored by players who were defensive players before they got the ball -- just like Meachem was.

As a matter of pure logic, the following argument is unsound even if the conclusion is correct:A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball.

Meachem became a defender after the Redskins intercepted the ball.

Therefore, Meachem's touchdown should be scored as a defensive TD.

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball: WRONG

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball: WRONG

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball: WRONG

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD: WRONG

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended. Bottom line.From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:

1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD

That one is fine, but that wasn't the faulty argument being refuted. The faulty argument being refuted was the one Stingdaddy just quoted from Sportsline: "By rule when there is a change of possession via turnover, the offensive team becomes the defense and the defense becomes the offense. [Therefore, the Saints were on defense when Meachem scored.]"It's a faulty argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise -- in fact, the conclusion is refuted by the premise. If the offense and defense switch whenever there's a turnover, then the Saints were on offense when Meachem scored. Sportsline needs to rephrase its premise. That's what people are pointing out.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended.

No. By rule, he is a member of Team A until the play has ended. Team A stays Team A and Team B stays Team B throughout the whole play. By contrast, the offense and the defense switch during the play whenever there's a turnover.

 

[pinequick]

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:

1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball: WRONG

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball: WRONG

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball: WRONG

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD: WRONG

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended. Bottom line.From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

Where is this quoted from? I keep seeing people post this--is this from the NFL rulebook that Maurile linked earlier in the season?(If so, this sort of ends all intelligent debate on the issue).

ETA: Gotcha... "Team A is Team A"... helpful

 

[Stingdiddy]

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:

1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD

That one is fine, but that wasn't the faulty argument being refuted. The faulty argument being refuted was the one Stingdaddy just quoted from Sportsline: "By rule when there is a change of possession via turnover, the offensive team becomes the defense and the defense becomes the offense. [Therefore, the Saints were on defense when Meachem scored.]"It's a faulty argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise -- in fact, the conclusion is refuted by the premise. If the offense and defense switch whenever there's a turnover, then the Saints were on offense when Meachem scored. Sportsline needs to rephrase its premise. That's what people are pointing out.

To add: By CBS's definition, when Ray Lewis makes a pick for a TD, the Baltimore Offense scored a touchdown. It's a change of possession right? Ravens line up on D, they picked the ball, so, it's a change of possession. Ray Lewis takes it in the end zone, thus, the offense scores.CBS is wrong on this one...

 

[TWP]

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended. Bottom line.

From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

Your own quote refutes your claim. "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." When the Skins intercepted, Meachem became a defender. Just because he never became on 'Team B' which is the team that did not put the ball into play, does not mean that he did not become a defender or a member of the Saint DST.

 

[TWP]

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:

1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD

That one is fine, but that wasn't the faulty argument being refuted. The faulty argument being refuted was the one Stingdaddy just quoted from Sportsline: "By rule when there is a change of possession via turnover, the offensive team becomes the defense and the defense becomes the offense. [Therefore, the Saints were on defense when Meachem scored.]"It's a faulty argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise -- in fact, the conclusion is refuted by the premise. If the offense and defense switch whenever there's a turnover, then the Saints were on offense when Meachem scored. Sportsline needs to rephrase its premise. That's what people are pointing out.

Their writing was a shorthand for my longer-form argument. They meant what i wrote.

 

[Stingdiddy]

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended. Bottom line.

From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

Your own quote refutes your claim. "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." When the Skins intercepted, Meachem became a defender. Just because he never became on 'Team B' which is the team that did not put the ball into play, does not mean that he did not become a defender or a member of the Saint DST.

Team A remains Team A until the down ends. The Saints, remain on offense until the down ends.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Meachem, by rule, is an offensive player on the field until the play has ended. Bottom line.

From the NFL rulebook Rule 3, Section 35, Article 1: "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." The rule, along with Rule 3, Section 35, Article 2, states: "The team that puts the ball in play is Team A, and its opponent is Team B. For brevity, a player on Team A is referred to as A1 and his teammates as A2, A3, etc… Opponents are B1, B2, etc… The rule goes on state through notation: "A team becomes Team A when it has been designated to put ball in play, and it remains Team A until a down ends, even though there might be one or more changes of possession during the down. This is in contrast with the terms Offense and Defense. Team A is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when B secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession."

Your own quote refutes your claim. "Whenever a team is in possession, it is the Offense and, at such time, its opponent is the Defense." When the Skins intercepted, Meachem became a defender. Just because he never became on 'Team B' which is the team that did not put the ball into play, does not mean that he did not become a defender or a member of the Saint DST.

Team A remains Team A until the down ends. The Saints, remain on offense until the down ends.

I've put in red the part that disagrees with your second sentence. Team A doesn't stay on offense until the down ends; it switches to defense when there's an odd number of turnovers.

 

[Dbbr]

I think the controversy is rooted in a real simple issue: in my opinion when you draft or buy a Team Defense/ST unit, you are procuring the rights to the points scored by those players assigned, by NFL roster, to either the defensive unit or special teams unit of that team. "Gray areas" would be the times when a team like NE puts Randy Moss back to defend the hail mary, and let's say Moss picks off the pass. But clearly, at the snap of the ball RM was playing a CB or Safety position.

This is nonsense in my view for anyone to contend that since you owned the New Orleans defense you get a TD because a roster WR made a play, during a play which started with the teams offense snapping the ball.

Common sense should come into play here folks.

Our league is very tight in total points (we play a head to head schedule and also a total points contest), last year 6 points was the difference between 1st and 3rd. CBS' decision awarded 8 points (2 pts fumble and 6 pts TD) to NO Def. Very likely those 8 points will come into play.

I was unable to make a commish ruling on this due to owning Meachem, but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.

As far as CBS Sportsline is concerned.....

If our owners weren't so familiar with the site, I'd pull the plug in a heartbeat.

 

[TWP]

I think the controversy is rooted in a real simple issue: in my opinion when you draft or buy a Team Defense/ST unit, you are procuring the rights to the points scored by those players assigned, by NFL roster, to either the defensive unit or special teams unit of that team. "Gray areas" would be the times when a team like NE puts Randy Moss back to defend the hail mary, and let's say Moss picks off the pass. But clearly, at the snap of the ball RM was playing a CB or Safety position.This is nonsense in my view for anyone to contend that since you owned the New Orleans defense you get a TD because a roster WR made a play, during a play which started with the teams offense snapping the ball.Common sense should come into play here folks.Our league is very tight in total points (we play a head to head schedule and also a total points contest), last year 6 points was the difference between 1st and 3rd. CBS' decision awarded 8 points (2 pts fumble and 6 pts TD) to NO Def. Very likely those 8 points will come into play. I was unable to make a commish ruling on this due to owning Meachem, but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.As far as CBS Sportsline is concerned..... If our owners weren't so familiar with the site, I'd pull the plug in a heartbeat.

You say that you get the points of the players on the D/ST units, but you clearly don't get their points if they make an offensive play, right? Like if Hester, who is a punt returner, catches a pass -- you don't get his points. So then shouldn't you, at least perhaps, get the points of a WR who makes a D/ST play? As CBS explains their view (and that of ESB apparently) the defining characteristic of a D/ST score is the way in which you got the ball. If you got it on a handoff, a pass, a lateral, or by recovering a teammate's fumble, it's an offensive play. If you got it by receiving a kick, intercepting a pass, or recovering an opponent's fumble, it's a defensive or ST play. Therefore, Meachem's play was a defensive play and the NO DST should get points. You're not getting the points of the defensive PLAYERS you're getting the points of the defensive PLAYS.

 

[Sarnoff]

but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.

Good luck when the more common occurence--the fake punt/FG--rears its ugly head.

 

[Pipes]

I think the controversy is rooted in a real simple issue: in my opinion when you draft or buy a Team Defense/ST unit, you are procuring the rights to the points scored by those players assigned, by NFL roster, to either the defensive unit or special teams unit of that team. "Gray areas" would be the times when a team like NE puts Randy Moss back to defend the hail mary, and let's say Moss picks off the pass. But clearly, at the snap of the ball RM was playing a CB or Safety position.This is nonsense in my view for anyone to contend that since you owned the New Orleans defense you get a TD because a roster WR made a play, during a play which started with the teams offense snapping the ball.Common sense should come into play here folks.Our league is very tight in total points (we play a head to head schedule and also a total points contest), last year 6 points was the difference between 1st and 3rd. CBS' decision awarded 8 points (2 pts fumble and 6 pts TD) to NO Def. Very likely those 8 points will come into play. I was unable to make a commish ruling on this due to owning Meachem, but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.As far as CBS Sportsline is concerned..... If our owners weren't so familiar with the site, I'd pull the plug in a heartbeat.

You say that you get the points of the players on the D/ST units, but you clearly don't get their points if they make an offensive play, right? Like if Hester, who is a punt returner, catches a pass -- you don't get his points. So then shouldn't you, at least perhaps, get the points of a WR who makes a D/ST play? As CBS explains their view (and that of ESB apparently) the defining characteristic of a D/ST score is the way in which you got the ball. If you got it on a handoff, a pass, a lateral, or by recovering a teammate's fumble, it's an offensive play. If you got it by receiving a kick, intercepting a pass, or recovering an opponent's fumble, it's a defensive or ST play. Therefore, Meachem's play was a defensive play and the NO DST should get points. You're not getting the points of the defensive PLAYERS you're getting the points of the defensive PLAYS.

Hester is a WR on those plays so of course the D/ST doesn't get the points when Hester catches a TD. You draft a team D/ST not an entire NFL roster who may play "defense" if there is a change of possession. I'll never understand the argument of giving points to the Saints D/ST in this case.

 

[Dbbr]

I think the controversy is rooted in a real simple issue: in my opinion when you draft or buy a Team Defense/ST unit, you are procuring the rights to the points scored by those players assigned, by NFL roster, to either the defensive unit or special teams unit of that team. "Gray areas" would be the times when a team like NE puts Randy Moss back to defend the hail mary, and let's say Moss picks off the pass. But clearly, at the snap of the ball RM was playing a CB or Safety position.This is nonsense in my view for anyone to contend that since you owned the New Orleans defense you get a TD because a roster WR made a play, during a play which started with the teams offense snapping the ball.Common sense should come into play here folks.Our league is very tight in total points (we play a head to head schedule and also a total points contest), last year 6 points was the difference between 1st and 3rd. CBS' decision awarded 8 points (2 pts fumble and 6 pts TD) to NO Def. Very likely those 8 points will come into play. I was unable to make a commish ruling on this due to owning Meachem, but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.As far as CBS Sportsline is concerned..... If our owners weren't so familiar with the site, I'd pull the plug in a heartbeat.

You say that you get the points of the players on the D/ST units, but you clearly don't get their points if they make an offensive play, right? Like if Hester, who is a punt returner, catches a pass -- you don't get his points. So then shouldn't you, at least perhaps, get the points of a WR who makes a D/ST play? As CBS explains their view (and that of ESB apparently) the defining characteristic of a D/ST score is the way in which you got the ball. If you got it on a handoff, a pass, a lateral, or by recovering a teammate's fumble, it's an offensive play. If you got it by receiving a kick, intercepting a pass, or recovering an opponent's fumble, it's a defensive or ST play. Therefore, Meachem's play was a defensive play and the NO DST should get points. You're not getting the points of the defensive PLAYERS you're getting the points of the defensive PLAYS.

Hester is a WR on those plays so of course the D/ST doesn't get the points when Hester catches a TD. You draft a team D/ST not an entire NFL roster who may play "defense" if there is a change of possession. I'll never understand the argument of giving points to the Saints D/ST in this case.

I'll never understand it either, and for the life of me I'm puzzled by those that argue for it to be a DT/ST score. When the ball is snapped, the players are either defense or offense, this is nuts saying offense became defense. CBS would have been better served to say they were Disqualifying the play from scoring, and advised all Leagues to handle on their own.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Maurile, read my post a few up -- this is nonsense. If you want to stick to the NFL rulebook AND THE NORMAL OPERATION OF FANTASY FOOTBALL then you would score this as a Defensive TD -- just like any other Defensive TD (scored by a player defending his end zone after he takes possession of the ball -- just like Meachem).

Then why does the NFL list it as an Offensive TD? Is the NFL ignoring the NFL rulebook?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Because you're missing part of the argument. Try this one out:

1. A player becomes a defender whenever the opposing team possesses the ball

2. Meachem became a defender when the Redskins possessed the ball

3. A DST TD is any TD scored by a player who switches from defender to offensive player when he (re)possesses the ball

4. Meachem switched from defender to offensive player when he (re)possessed the ball

5. Therefore, Meachem's TD was a DST TD

The part in bold does not exist within the NFL rules. It surely exists within the world of fantasy football, and it may be a common rule with most fantasy football leagues.......but it's not an NFL rule.

 

[BaBastage]

And the most important thing to learn out of all this is to make sure that your rules contain a default clause along the lines of:

"Any scoring scenario not explicitly covered by the above exceptions will be determined by the provider's (sportsline / yahoo / mfl etc.) default scoring system."

btw, our league has a provision for this scenario, and credits Meacham for the TD, not the DST.

Technically, the fumble itself is +2 points for getting it, and -2 points for losing it, so it's basically a wash. Brees was still penalized for an int, and he did not get points for Meacham's TD.

Great stuff.

 

[Sarnoff]

but I did add an edict to our Rulebook indicating that the team's defense/ST must be on the field to score points.

Good luck when the more common occurence--the fake punt/FG--rears its ugly head.

Oh, and even more good luck when the even more common occurence, the QB-interception-returned-for-a-touchdown, happens; unless you already don't count that against the D/ST of the QB's team...

 

[TenTimes]

Maybe somebody can help me out with this... if Washington had run the INT back for a TD the 7 points would be reflected on New Orleans D/ST's "points allowed" (and I'm not just talking fantasy football)

Points scored against an intercepted team count against their defense, but points scored by one don't count for their defense? How does that line up?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.

I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.

J

 

[Lobary]

Maybe somebody can help me out with this... if Washington had run the INT back for a TD the 7 points would be reflected on New Orleans D/ST's "points allowed" (and I'm not just talking fantasy football)Points scored against an intercepted team count against their defense, but points scored by one don't count for their defense? How does that line up?

Well, Yahoo doesn't count points off turnovers against Team DEF.

 

[RC94]

I didn't read most of this thread so I don't know if it's been posted yet, but here is how MFL is handling it:

http://football18.myfantasyleague.com/2009...Strange%20Plays

1. How is the week 13 Meachem Fumble Recovery TD after an Interception in the Saints game being scored?

Answer: At the end of the first half of the week 13 game between the Redskins and Saints, Kareem Moore of the Redskins intercepted a pass from Drew Brees of the Saints. During the interception return, Robert Meachem of the Saints stripped the ball from Moore, and ran it in for a TD.

As mentioned in our Strange Plays FAQ, we've always scored this type of play as a 43 yard "Offensive Fumble Recovery TD" for Robert Meachem (see the "Offensive Fumble Recovery TD Following A Turnover." section). If your league wants Meachem to receive the points for this touchdown, then you'll need to make sure the "Offensive Fumble Recovery TD" rule is defined in your scoring rules for the WR position.

If your league wants to score this play differently than how it shows up in the stats, then your commissioner would need to use the "For Commissioners > Adjust Scores and Standings > Player Score Adjuster" screen to add or subtract points to Meachem or the Saints Defense as needed.

Note: This play is NOT scored as a Defensive Fumble Recovery TD for the Saints Team Defense position, since their defensive unit was not on the field during that play.

One common "urban legend" we've heard about this play mentions "the NFL scores this as a defensive play". While that sounds like a convincing argument, unfortunately, it's not correct. The gamebook from the Saints/Redskins game most clearly indicates this, where, on page 5, it has a "Final Defensive Statistics" page. Note the statistics for Meacham's tackle, forced fumble, and fumble recovery are listed under the "Misc" heading, and not under the "Regular Defensive Plays" heading. So while the Saints, and Meacham, were in fact defending their goal at the time he stripped the ball away, the Saints offensive team unit, and not their defensive team unit, were on the field at the time of this play, and therefore, we feel that most leagues will not want to score this as a touchdown awarded to the Saints "Def" position. In short, the "Def" position is simply an invention made up by us fantasy footballers for the benefit of our hobby, and not anything that the NFL officially recognizes.

Note that for what it is worth, the last time this type of touchdown occurred was 6 years ago in 2003 when the Buccaneers threw an Interception, which was then fumbled and then Keenan McCardell recovered it and ran it in for a TD. So this type of play is very rare, but it was scored the same way the last time it happened.

For a more detailed discussion of special plays like this, please see our Statistics Lifecycle FAQ, specifically the "A Special Note About 'Miscellaneous' Plays" section, which goes into detail on this general topic, and the responsibility that you and your league-mates have in deciding how plays like this are scored before they actually come up in a game situation.

ETA - I don't know why that link isn't working but I got it from the 4th post in this thread about the Meacham play in their forums

 

[Dbbr]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.J

Joe - the New Orleans defensive team was on the sidelines watching the offense play. I believe fantasy football scoring measures very specific things by specific players/roster positions. Adding "team defense" to your roster gives you the defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs/safeties on that roster. If it's DT/ST, it gives you the kick returns in addition to those other positions. I'd prefer to see this not scored (thrown out) rather than see it count for the team defense. Somewhere, someone is going to lose and someone is going to win based on those points, and if I lost to a team that got those points under the NO DT/ST.....would not feel good. That unit was not in the game at the time of this play. Common sense should prevail here.

 

[Sarnoff]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.J

Joe - the New Orleans defensive team was on the sidelines watching the offense play. I believe fantasy football scoring measures very specific things by specific players/roster positions. Adding "team defense" to your roster gives you the defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs/safeties on that roster. If it's DT/ST, it gives you the kick returns in addition to those other positions. I'd prefer to see this not scored (thrown out) rather than see it count for the team defense. Somewhere, someone is going to lose and someone is going to win based on those points, and if I lost to a team that got those points under the NO DT/ST.....would not feel good. That unit was not in the game at the time of this play. Common sense should prevail here.

Is Joe the commissioner of your league or something? You do realize he's not making an official decision for the entire business of fantasy football, right?

 

[urbanhack]

ESPN is now giving Meachem the 6.

 

[Dbbr]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.J

Joe - the New Orleans defensive team was on the sidelines watching the offense play. I believe fantasy football scoring measures very specific things by specific players/roster positions. Adding "team defense" to your roster gives you the defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs/safeties on that roster. If it's DT/ST, it gives you the kick returns in addition to those other positions. I'd prefer to see this not scored (thrown out) rather than see it count for the team defense. Somewhere, someone is going to lose and someone is going to win based on those points, and if I lost to a team that got those points under the NO DT/ST.....would not feel good. That unit was not in the game at the time of this play. Common sense should prevail here.

Is Joe the commissioner of your league or something? You do realize he's not making an official decision for the entire business of fantasy football, right?

Missing your point? Sharing my opinion with Joe only, just in friendly discussion.

 

[Corey's Carnage]

Such a strange play, I think that it should be a no-score, unless specifically in the rules.

 

[BassNBrew]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.J

Joe - the New Orleans defensive team was on the sidelines watching the offense play. I believe fantasy football scoring measures very specific things by specific players/roster positions. Adding "team defense" to your roster gives you the defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs/safeties on that roster. If it's DT/ST, it gives you the kick returns in addition to those other positions. I'd prefer to see this not scored (thrown out) rather than see it count for the team defense. Somewhere, someone is going to lose and someone is going to win based on those points, and if I lost to a team that got those points under the NO DT/ST.....would not feel good. That unit was not in the game at the time of this play. Common sense should prevail here.

Is Joe the commissioner of your league or something? You do realize he's not making an official decision for the entire business of fantasy football, right?

Technically he's the commish of the largest league in the land...the 35K contest.

 

[BassNBrew]

For those of you leaning on the NFL "the offense becomes the defense"...this is in place to signify that the offensive players can tackle after a turnover and outlines the blocking allowed by the team gaining possession. You can hit the QB after a pass, but you can hit the QB after a pass is intercepted.

 

[Chairshot]

I believe one thing is a given: for fantasy purposes, virtually every league says that if a team is playing defense and they create a turnover and score a TD, those points are scored for the turnover-creating team D/ST (regardless of NFL rules). I think we can all agree on that.

So, the simple question becomes: "Were the Saints playing defense or offense when Meachem stripped the ball and returned it for a TD?" If they were playing defense, it's a clear D/ST score, based on the given statement. If they were playing offense, then Meachem really has to get credit for a TD.

With this in mind, I think it becomes very clear how a league should decide to rule the Meachem play: If your league counts pick 6's as points against a D/ST, then you have to count the Meachem TD as a Defensive TD for the Saints.

If your league does not count pick 6's as PA the D/ST, then the play should be ruled as a TD for Meachem.

I don't think there can be a blanket "right way/wrong way" ruling on this play because how your league has been scoring plays with turnovers all year should be your leagues' guide.

If your league counts pick 6's as PA: The precedent for the "offense becoming the defense" is already set. For example, if the Skins had held on to the ball and scored a TD on that play, in those leagues, those points would be scored against the Saints D/ST. Which means that the Saints are considered a defensive unit for fantasy purposes in those situations. And if they are a defense, then considering the given opening statement above, the turnover/TD has to be considered a defensive TD.

If your league does not consider pick 6's to be points against the team D/ST, then your league has set a precedent that says "offense stays offense and defense stays defense, regardless of what happens on the play". In that case, Meachem gets the points and the Saints D can not get points.

I think this is the only way to keep scoring consistent.

I'd also like to echo the earlier sentiment that says there should be a clause in every league constitution that says something to the effect of "if a scoring issue isn't specifically covered in the constitution, then the website ruling will be final". I have a clause like that in the league I commish. While I don't agree the ruling the website made, at least the league has a clear direction of how to handle the situation.

 

[kerpow]

In a (competitive) Yahoo league I play in with IDP and return yards there has clearly been an error. Meacham has been awarded 36.20 pts when I believe it should have been just 30.20

Here's how it was scored

142 receiving yds = 14.2

1 receiving TD = 6

1 FF = 2

1 FR = 1

1 Tackle Solo = 1

1 Offensive Fumble return TD = 6

1 Defensive TD = 6

WFT, he can't score 2 TDs on the same play.

I was playing the guy who had Meacham but fortunately it wasn't enough for him to beat me, though it made the scores closer than I would have liked.

 

[oso diablo]

does the same logic prevail for the Meacham fumble recovery as for his TD?

I have to make a ruling that determines our regular season champion, and it hinges on those 2 points that were awarded to the Saints DST for the fumble recovery by Meacham. We use MFL and they rightly don't award the Saints a defensive TD, but they ARE giving them the fumble points, pointing to system limitations.

 

[Sarnoff]

Ahh. After thinking about this for the day, I can see pretty clearly the other side of the coin. I said earlier, I'd be comfortable with Meachem receiving a TD for this. I can also be convinced to be comfortable with the side that says it's a DEF TD. It really does depend on how your rules are written for you league.I'll get with our Doug Drinen and David Dodds and we'll make a call here. Doug will relay to everyone what we come up with.J

Joe - the New Orleans defensive team was on the sidelines watching the offense play. I believe fantasy football scoring measures very specific things by specific players/roster positions. Adding "team defense" to your roster gives you the defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs/safeties on that roster. If it's DT/ST, it gives you the kick returns in addition to those other positions. I'd prefer to see this not scored (thrown out) rather than see it count for the team defense. Somewhere, someone is going to lose and someone is going to win based on those points, and if I lost to a team that got those points under the NO DT/ST.....would not feel good. That unit was not in the game at the time of this play. Common sense should prevail here.

Is Joe the commissioner of your league or something? You do realize he's not making an official decision for the entire business of fantasy football, right?

Technically he's the commish of the largest league in the land...the 35K contest.

I'm just funning with Dbbr, he's really bent out of shape on this. "Somewhere someone is going to lose based on this decision," and he's the guy who started the "I'm leaving CBS Sportsline because of this decision"... yet in both the subscriber contest and on CBS it's all consistent with the rules already in place.

 

[bollocks28]

Maybe somebody can help me out with this... if Washington had run the INT back for a TD the 7 points would be reflected on New Orleans D/ST's "points allowed" (and I'm not just talking fantasy football)Points scored against an intercepted team count against their defense, but points scored by one don't count for their defense? How does that line up?

Well, Yahoo doesn't count points off turnovers against Team DEF.

ESPN does. Had the Skins returned the INT for a TD then the Saints D/ST would have been penalized for the points against even though the Saints "defensive unit" never saw the field. I think both Meachem and the Saints D/ST should get credit for the TD.

 

[TommyGilmore]

does the same logic prevail for the Meacham fumble recovery as for his TD?I have to make a ruling that determines our regular season champion, and it hinges on those 2 points that were awarded to the Saints DST for the fumble recovery by Meacham. We use MFL and they rightly don't award the Saints a defensive TD, but they ARE giving them the fumble points, pointing to system limitations.

Are you sure MFL is crediting Meachem's fumble, or are they crediting the muffed punt before the end of the first half?

 

[30 Rock]

If you're going to awards points for the Saints D then your logic would have to be that once the Redskins obtained possession of the ball the Redskins became the offense and the Saints became the defense. However, carrying that logic through, wouldn't you then have to say that once Meacham got the ball back, the Saints now became the offense again and the Redskins became the defense again? It seems inconsistent to only change the labels of "offense" and "defense" for the first turnover and not the second turnover. Personally, I would award Meacham with an offensive TD.

 

[J R]

I think the controversy is rooted in a real simple issue: in my opinion when you draft or buy a Team Defense/ST unit, you are procuring the rights to the points scored by those players assigned, by NFL roster, to either the defensive unit or special teams unit of that team. "Gray areas" would be the times when a team like NE puts Randy Moss back to defend the hail mary, and let's say Moss picks off the pass. But clearly, at the snap of the ball RM was playing a CB or Safety position.

This is nonsense in my view for anyone to contend that since you owned the New Orleans defense you get a TD because a roster WR made a play, during a play which started with the teams offense snapping the ball.

Common sense should come into play here folks.

:(

 

[simsarge]

FWIW, here's RT Sports take on the play:

ALERT from RealTime Fantasy SportsIn the New Orleans - Washington gamerew Brees threw a pass that was intercepted by K. Moore of the Redskins. Moore returned the ball to the Washington 44, where he was stripped of the ball by Robert Meachem, who then ran for the touchdown. Per our policy regarding these types of plays, this is an offensive fumble recovery touchdown for Meachem and NOT a defensive fumble recovery touchdown for the Saints. The intent of having a defensive unit on a fantasy team is to own the defensive players of that team; clearly the Saints defensive unit was never on the field at any time during the play. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you're going to awards points for the Saints D then your logic would have to be that once the Redskins obtained possession of the ball the Redskins became the offense and the Saints became the defense. However, carrying that logic through, wouldn't you then have to say that once Meacham got the ball back, the Saints now became the offense again and the Redskins became the defense again? It seems inconsistent to only change the labels of "offense" and "defense" for the first turnover and not the second turnover.

It's not inconsistent to consistently award points to the team that was on defense at the instant before the turnover. In fact, the way you described it would be inconsistent because if we're saying that the Saints were on offense after Meachem's fumble recovery, wouldn't we then have to say that the Redskins were on offense after the interception (such that if the INT had been returned for a touchdown, the Redskins' D/ST would not be credited)? It seems inconsistent to only change the labels of "offense" and "defense" for the second turnover and not the first turnover. There are both consistent and inconsistent arguments supporting each position. Ultimately, neither position is inherently more or less consistent than the other -- it just comes down to how your league's rules read. Asking whether Meachem's touchdown should be scored as an offensive or defensive TD for fantasy purposes is a bit like asking whether Meachem should get a point for a six-yard reception. Does your league award points for receptions? Does your league award the D/ST points for all return TDs, or just for return TDs by the team that was on defense at the start of the play ("Team B" using NFL rules parlance)? Does your league award an individual points for return TDs?There's no inherently right or wrong answer to any of those questions in an objective sense -- it just depends on how your league's scoring is set up.