"FBG Commish Ruling" on Mon Nite - Our .02 (1 Viewer)

[Sam Quentin]

Just as a side note, one of my leagues does not count this as a score against the defense. It only counts points against the DT when the defense was on the field.That seems like a good rule to me, and I wish more leagues would adopt it.

Every league I have ever been in scores it similar to Maurile's one league. Points scored via special teams or defense (at the start of the play - don't start this whole switching back and forth thing again) do not count against the team's defensive points allowed stat. I find this a far better way to score defense points allowed.

To me, that's like the designated hitter rule in baseball.In the old days, you played 60 minutes. To me they are all football players, and if need be, they should be able to make a stop on a fumble or pick.

 

[tdoss]

Sorry Commish...but your bait is foul...I took no bait...you mentioned some ridiculous analogy of a used car lot...having only used cars...and they put a motorcycle on the lot.Well...that's not a proper analogy...plain and simple...they only had one choice...only one place to put it...on their lot or just leave the d@mn thing parked on the side of the street for anyone who wants it.The NFL is not as such...they have more than one option...they could put it just about anywhere they choose...but they chose...yes...chose to create a section under DEFENSIVE stats to place just such an occurance.Why did they choose that section? Because...it is the best place for it...where else could you put a "defensive" type of play? Defensive type of play like...oh...I don't know..."a tackle"..."an assisted tackle"..."a forced fumble" or "a fumble recovery/return".Those are defensive type plays in their nature...so...they chose to put them under Defensive - Misc...in fact...that's why they created "Defensive - Misc"...in order to house these types of plays...because...again...they are defensive in nature.Now...again...if they wanted to...they could've created a separate section somewhere else...anywhere else...but again...the only way this happens are through those four defensive type actions listed above. And since they are defensive in nature...they stuck them there.Since you're the one to cast out some bait and see what bites...how about I cast one back and see how you respond...What else can go under "Defensive - Misc" category? Meaning...if it was not created specifically to house these types of plays when the offense has to act in a defensive manner...what else can go there?I say...that if nothing else applies...then...uh oh...ready for it...they created that section SPECIFICALLY for these instances...and are therefore not "stuck" putting them there...but put them there for a reason. Sometime...somewhere...they made that decision and they stuck to it...that's how they chose to track those types of plays...and I say why not mirror what the NFL does...Your move...

 

[The Commissioner]

tdoss,The tone of my last post showed the frustration of a guy who has spent WAYYYYYY too much time on this topic. (I'm self-employed and put a memo in my own personnel file warning me for working on personal matters for two straight days! I have suspended myself to a day without pay tomorrow where I will be punished with the last day of Minnesota golf for the year.) I'm sorry for letting my frustration show. I'm not interested in dragging this out any more so this will be my last post on the matter.Your reasoning in your last post is circular. You define four events that are generally defensive in nature and then refer to the four categories you supplied as justification for why they should fall under the defensive category. If you were able to provide an entire list of those plays that would fall under misc. that was produced by the NFL and they would all be defensive in nature, I would be more moved. However, I am not certain that the entire universe of Misc. plays fall neatly into your four categories.You also did not satisfy the request to find where the NFL considered the possibility of this play could be an offensive play and instead chose to designate it a defensive play. Instead, your interprtation leads one to believe the NFL considered the universe of all plays that are neither passes, rushes for TDs, two point conversions nor possibly kicking points (i.e. FG and PAT) and categorized ALL other types of scoring as being defensive in nature. I'm saying I don't agree with that interpretation.The analogy of the car dealership was simple. That analogy, coupled with Lincoln's quote, was to demonstrate that by calling an offensive TD a defensive TD simply by placing it on a chart that is ambiguous at best does not make it a defensive TD. It was not to demonstrate a perfect parallel to our situation. I'm sorry that analogy was lost on you.tdoss and Everyone else,It is clear that there are about a half dozen folks that will continue to post on this topic as if this is some sort of Survivor contest. Well, I'm out. If he with the last post wins, then I lose. But I still have seen nothing to indicate that this is a defensive TD for TB. Here is a summary of how I see the matter: * Tampa Bay started the play on offense. Indianapolis on defense. * The player that scored the TD is an offensive player for TB. * By NFL rule, the player that recovered the ball and returned it for a TD started the play on offense, was reclassified as a defensive player upon the interception and then regained his status as an offensive player as he recoevred the fumble. He retained that status until the TD was scored. * I contend that we all understand the fallacy of the previous point and therefore have classified TDs by defenders as defensive TDs since the game was created. * When those that acquired the Tampa Bay defense did so, if they were handed a roster and asked to name the members they expected to produce valid scoring opportunities for them under any circumstances, people would have selected DL, LB and DBs. This does not get to the technicality of the matter. But it does get to the common sense, common person expectation of what is meant by defensive team. * To the best of anyone's knowledge, RTSports.com is the only one that claims to have made an actual call to the NFL (instead of trying to interpret their awkward charts) and their ruling, based on advice form the NFL, was to rule it as an offensive TD. The NFL's logic, as reported by RTSports.com, is that the team that starts the play on offense remains on offense throughout the play, regardless of changes of possession. I think, at the core, this is how most fantasy footballers feel. * I reject the notion that there can be two defensive teams on the field at any given time. * I believe common sense dictates that the fat guys that line up as defensive players at the start of the play remain defensive players throughout the play. * I concede that the narrow definition of the designation coming at the time of the triggering event (i.e. fumble rcovery) is a valid one. That being written, I highly doubt that this is what was intended or defined by ANY fantasy league rules throughout the country prior to the sophisticated wordsmithing going on to redefine this TD as a defensive TD. * I believe blindly accepting the NFL's ruling or the ruling of your league management website/software is a copout and your league ought to do what's right. If that means going through the trouble of changing your website's or softwware's ruling, then that is the right thing to do. In fact, even CBSSportsline.com states that if your league agrees to change their ruling, it may manually change the scoring. * I believe that this previous point is in direct conflict with the advice of Joe Bryant, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. His position is that it is best to rely on the one source - likely your website - and roll with that. I think that is the best advice for the casual fantasy footballer and 95% of the folks that play the game. I think the audience for this debate is the 5% that have decided already that they reject to blindly accept their website's interpretation and want to enter into a healthy dialog on the matter and let truth and justice and all of that jazz prevail. * The overwhelming majority of private e-mails I have received on the matter have demonstrated a very strong bias toward the play being an offensive TD and the folks were writing, looking for guidance (read: approval) to challenge their site's scoring of the play more than a pure interpretation. This also reinforces the notion that the common man's interpretation is that only the defensive team ought to be able to score defensive points. * And finally, I believe tdoss will try to encite me into further debate by claiming that one of these points is flawed and if I do not defend my position, I will have conceded the entire point to him. I will chuckle and move on. letting him believe he has won if he'd like.Look. There have been 250 posts on this site alone on this matter. We have provided links to other sites that have even more lively debate. If you reject these arguments, I'm sure you find others in this discussion that are more to your liking. Roll with those.My official (as official as it can be) ruling remains as it was Monday night at 9:00 when my life took a terrible turn for the worse when the Tampa Bay/Indianapolis game turned into a pinball game. The only thing that has changed is as more information has become available, I am more firmly entrenched that McCardell's TD cannot be scored as a defensive TD. It simply defies logic, NFL rules and common sense.Good luck to those that carry on the torch. I hope you find the version of the truth for which you are looking.

 

[tdoss]

Dude...get over yourself..."I believe tdoss will try to encite me into further debate by claiming that one of these points is flawed and if I do not defend my position, I will have conceded the entire point to him. I will chuckle and move on. letting him believe he has won if he'd like."

How exactly is someone supposed to debate something if you throw out this teflon statement trying to make any attempts to pick your arguments apart as some "out of this world" strategy. Talk about cop-out.

Here goes...how about I take the same stance...

I AM RIGHT...because I SAY I'M RIGHT...

Lastly...I believe the commish will try to entice me into further debate by claiming that one of these points is flawed and if I do not defend my position, I will have conceded the entire point to him. I will chuckle and move on...letting him believe he has won if he'd like."

Wow...man...after reading that...dude...I gotta give props...that's pretty good. Hard to argue with it because you've already taken the spear and thrown it for the other side...not bad...seriously...kudos to you my man. And extra credit for drawing the reader in...with the gentle aside...I could almost imagine you turning and talking directly to the camera on that one...sweet.

I have no idea who you are...but have lost all...sorry...most respect I could muster for you in the way that you defend your position. The "thanking me for taking the bait" comment...was absolutely unnecessary. I called your used car lot analogy on the mat because I thought it was flawed...even ended that post with saying that I absolutely see the point/argument of ruling it as an offensive TD...but you still felt it necessary to make it a bit more personal...so...I've obviously responded in kind...

Now...back to the debate...whether you choose to engage...I could not care less...

I'm looking at the gamebooks and they have the category Defensive - Misc...and under that category is tackles, assists, forced fumbles and fumble returns...

I did not put them there...the NFL did. The NFL saw fit to put those four categories under Defensive - Misc...why? Again...because they are defensive in nature.

Another thing...when you look at NFL.com's TD's leaders...you will see KMcCardell listed as having 4 TD's on the year. 3 are listed at Offensive Receptions...and 1 as...you guessed it "Defensive". Yet another example of the NFL putting the TD under Defense.

As for the change of possession topic/rule...I interpret it to mean that whatever position you were playing "before" the change of possession is what type of play it is.

Team A = Offense at beginning of play

Team B = Defense at beginning of play

Example 1:

Team A throws TD to teammate...offensive TD.

Example 2:

Team A throws Interception to Team B...Team B now becomes offensive minded and tries to score...Team A is now in defensive mode and tries to tackle Team B. Team B scores...defensive TD. Even though Team B is acting in an offensive manner...they were on defense directly before the change of possession...so the INT and ensuing TD are credited to the defense.

Example 3:

Team A throws Interception to Team B...Team B now becomes offensive minded and tries to score...Team A is now in defensive mode and tries to tackle Team B. Team B fumbles and Team A recovers the ball. Team B now switches back to defensive mode and Team A now switches back to offense and tries to score. Team A scores...defensive TD. Even though Team A is acting in an offensive manner...they were on defense directly before the change of possession...so the fumble and ensuing TD are credited to the defense.

This flip/flopping could go on and on and on...back and forth...but no matter what...any tackle...forced fumble...assist...fumble recovery...will be done from a defensive standpoint. They were acting in a defensive manner when they stripped the ball/recovered the ball/tackled the player...etc...they were on defense directly before the change of possession.

And sorry...but I couldn't help but point out one of your examples as being utterly ridiculous...you mentioned that when someone chooses their defense...that if they were asked to name the positions...they would say DL, LB and DB...and that therefore is a prime example of why it's not a defensive TD...sorry...no go...in my leagues and many leagues who are wrestling with this problem...we draft Defense/Special Teams...all together...so...in this prime example...anyone who chose "your definition of defense"...would not get credit for any of DHall's Record Breaking Return TD's.

As for however many people have emailed you, visited your home, talked to you neighbors, sent smoke signals...who cares? A large number of people thought the world was flat...and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Still doesn't make it right.

Now...it doesn't make it wrong either...so I applaud you unloading every bit of ammo you had...not bad...last ditch effort...sure...go Guns of Navarone on the opposition and hope it works. Which...is really why you're done arguing...you've shot your wad and have nothing left...hence the "refrain from posting any further on this topic".

So...even though you've taken your ball and gone home...I'll gladly welcome you back onto the court if you chose to return...but I can't be held responsible for the spectators heckling you because of that stunt you pulled...

 

[The Commissioner]

tdoss,If I had your e-mail, I would have e-mailed you directly and privately to apologize for the "taking the bait" comment. It was a cheap shot and uncalled for. As I mentioned, it was the result of a lack of sleep and an overdose of frustration. My first thought was to go back and edit that out of my message, but I wrote it and I'm a big boy and I need to stand up for what I wrote. I'm sorry I wrote it, but I did write it.As to the other points, I'm going to let them go because the issues have not changed. We just keep rehashing the same positions. They're more interesting with the personal attacks but the arguments themselves are tired.After sleeping on it, I will stop by from time to time and see if we have a new spin on things. If there is a new and interesting position, I'll consider it and take it in. I may even reengage in the debate. But if it a rewrap of old fish, I'm not going to spend more time responding.I have already conceded the "possession at or immediately before the event that possession changed" IF it is clearly stated that this was your interpretation of the rule. If this is your interpretation, then I'm sorry we've wasted all of this time. You are correct. I think all other interpretations lead to it being an offensive TD by Tampa Bay and I do not believe in the "designation at or immediately before the change in possession." It's valid. I just don't believe in it.But that's the point. This is the difference in interpretation that will never allow us to reach a compromise on this matter. On the one hand, you have the NFL rule - Off, Def, Off with each change of possession dictating the designations. On the other, you have the oversimplified position that they are offense when they started the play and should stay that way the entire play. Then there is this third hand which is the position you and BNB have taken. Like you, I have acknowledged that I can understand the opposing position and support it as a valid interpretation. I just think it is important that people view it that way in pure fashion, not a revisionist interpretation to meet their needs. Since I doubt that was the case, I concede it is a valid interpretation, but only if it is a pure one and not thought up after the fact.Now you do not have a dog in this fight in your leagues. Neither do I. That's good because we cannot be accused of taking our position for selfish purposes. I don't know for sure that you don't, of course, but I trust your statement and still maintain respect for you, your position and your argument - even if you no longer have respect (or very little) for me and even though I did not show you adequate respect in my prior post. I reject your premise. However, if your premise is granted, then your conclusion can be the only one that is right.But if I reject your premise and you reject mine, there is no value in us continuing the debate. We're no longer debating teh conclusion, we're debating the premise. Folks have to decide which premise they want to support, which position most closley matches their beliefs and then go with it to its logical conclusion.And the hundreds of e-mails I have received are e-mails that have come from commissioners and owners various fantasy football leagues throughout the country through the various services for which I perform my Ask the Commissioner/Commissioner Court function. These are fantasy footballers with valid views - just like you and I. My mention of these e-mails was not the, "Well, my Dad and my aunt and my best friend Bo think I'm right. So there." I was trying to infuse into the debate the pulse of the masses from other sources not introduced. Their desire to air out their beliefs and concerns in a private e-mail instead of a message board does not make their views any less valid.So I'm sorry it became personal. I'm sorry my lapse in professionalism made it so. I apologize to you personally. But the reason I am ending my part in the debate is because we are clearly both firmly entrenched and both have strong, valid positions in which we believe. Clearly, we cannot fathom the notion that the other side can possibly think the way they do, so this is a debate that will never have an end. It will drone on and on and on. I'm am not taking my ball and going home. I am moving on to other matters, having stated my case as clearly and completely as I can.Because I continue to receive dozens of e-mails a day on the matter, I am considering giving your arguments an "opposing view" on my standard reply. My concern is that it will cause confusion. But I also do not want to be in a position of managing subscribers' access to the truth. Frankly, the biggest concern I have is rewritting my answer in a more concise manner. I write way too much and if I would never getting around to reading my answer, I can't expect them to.At this point, I am done commenting until something new comes up.Bill

 

[wharf rat]

At this point, I am done commenting until something new comes up.Bill

yeah right. promises promises...

 

[tdoss]

Commish...I have to apologize myself...messageboards can bring out the worst in us all. Sorry for taking the fight to the ground...I'll try to keep the punches clean and above the belt from now on.As for the respect thing...what was lost in one reply was regained in the last...As for having a dog in this race...I truly don't...however, I am the commish of a league that will invariably take me to task on either position of this debate...and my exercise was to make sure all points are covered. I'd truly love to rule that this is cut and dry and simply say that it was an offensive player who scored...whichever position you start the play on is the defining factor...however, both sides have valid points...and again, I was looking for solid debate for either side when my Rules Committee meet on this for future instances.We've initially ruled to have it be defensive for now...because that's where the NFL has placed it. We don't really have a category or slot to place this thing either...so we're mirroring the NFL.Another reason we are is because our league is based on salary keepers. Our salaries are based on the player's points per game...as determined by that players year end stats. At the end of the year, KMcCardell will not have that defensive TD anywhere in his stats...so his points per game or salary will not reflect that TD. If we ruled to give that TD to KMcCardell right now...then at the end of the year...we'll have to manually add in that TD and any other TD's scored in this manner. It makes the process overbearingly difficult. Everyone should be able to quickly look at the player's Total Yards and TD's and figure out his salary.I appreciate your viewpoints...and wanted to hear every reason why it should be counted as an offensive TD...just in case our league could consider it that way...also so I'll know what I'll be up against when we do have to write this rule up for future instances.For our league...we'll probably have to leave it as defensive...because of the salary situation...I definitely look forward to more info...I'm hoping someone is writing the league or officials for a clearer explanation...and a definitive reason for why it's placed under defense for their tracking purposes. I honestly don't feel it's because they had no where else to put it...they created that section for a reason...and to me...it's for only these cases where the offensive player has to act in a defensive nature.Thanks again for the debate...good stuff...hope we can do it again sometime...

 

[The Commissioner]

That's what I like about being a guy. You fight. You pummell one another nearly to death, then you pick yourselves up, drag each other to the bar, buy one another a beer and tell each other you're good guys.tdoss, this was a good debate. I'd want you in my league any day!PS I guess Wharf Rat was right.

 

[tdoss]

Ha...yea...wharf's right...no sense in giving up when there's still a smidgen of fight left...I could quote Shakespeare, Plato or maybe even Elvis...but I think Khan said it best..."With my last breath...I spit at thee"Ya gotta respect that...I don't care who you are...Now...belly up to the bar and have a Guinness on me bro...

 

[lombardi]

That's what I like about being a guy. You fight. You pummell one another nearly to death, then you pick yourselves up, drag each other to the bar, buy one another a beer and tell each other you're good guys.

If you were women you would probably never talk to each other for the rest of your lives.As men after taking it the mat and surviving, if you knew each other personally you would probably be friends for life.GB being a man

 

[Cybergeek]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought it may help clarify this messy business. Link to article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Oct. 09, 2003

Confusion reigns for Fantasy Leaguers after Colts-Buccaneers game

BY ED BARKOWITZ

Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - TD or not TD?

Had William Shakespeare played fantasy football, (ital) that (end ital) would have been his question.

But that is a question many fantasy players were asking this week. The play in question was Buccaneers wide receiver Keenan McCardell's 57-yard fumble return for a touchdown in the first quarter on Monday night.

Confusion reigned as McCardell danced his way toward pay dirt after recovering a fumble by Indianapolis safety Mike Doss, who had just intercepted a pass.

Should the Bucs' defense be credited with McCardell's score because, after all, it came as the result of a return? Or, should the defense not be given credit because the touchdown was scored by an offensive player?

TD or not TD? It's an interesting question.

SportsLine.com is a leading fantasy football outlet, operating thousands of leagues throughout the land. It credited the Bucs' defense with a touchdown on McCardell's return. Scott Engel, managing editor of fantasy sports for the site, explained why:

"Once Tampa Bay fumbled the ball away and Indianapolis picked up the ball and advanced it, Keenan McCardell is no longer an offensive player," he said.

The Elias Sports Bureau, the NFL's stat keeper, classifies McCardell's score simply as a return touchdown - not an offensive or defensive score.

The TBML is a Philadelphia-based league run by SportsLine. Commissioner Joe Corcoran disagrees with its ruling, but is abiding by it.

"I don't think they made the correct decision," he said. "While the Web site's reasoning (that the ball changed possession) appears sound, it ignores the obvious - no special-teams or defensive players from Tampa were on the field."

"It's not something you have to stick with," Engel pointed out. "If you are in one of our commissioner leagues, you can just adjust the scoring . . . if that's what you see fit. You have the flexibility."

Point is, it's a judgment call for the commissioner, and no matter what the ruling, someone will not be happy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Elias Sports Bureau...the NFL's stat keeper...rules that it is not a Tampa Bay defensive touchdown...that's good enough for me...After all we are trying to mirror how the NFL ruled it...or so I've read a dozen or so times...

 

[roadkill1292]

God, we're still battling this out in my league, even though we decided this issue back in '97 when it last happened. We voted on the scoring then, stated that that's how we'd do it in the future barring a rules change, and three guys are still saying that our ruling is wrong! I asked them how could we score it one way in '97 and exactly the opposite six years later and they still won't let it go.

Shouldn't precedent be the guiding concept here? Notice that I haven't said which way we scored it. Judge the issue on whether the scoring should be consistent with the league's decision six years ago.

 

[smlevin]

God, we're still battling this out in my league, even though we decided this issue back in '97 when it last happened. We voted on the scoring then, stated that that's how we'd do it in the future barring a rules change, and three guys are still saying that our ruling is wrong! I asked them how could we score it one way in '97 and exactly the opposite six years later and they still won't let it go.

If the other 9 owners are saying - it's decided, tell the three whiners to suck it up and pee off.The decision from 6 years ago is now a "rule" that has stood unchallenged and unchanged for 6 years - even if the "official" rules don't mention the sitch.

 

[Tau837]

Could not read all 8 pages, so I'm not sure if this point has been made or not.

It has been discussed here that the NFL rule technically says that a player who begins a play on offense becomes a defensive player at the time of a turnover. Others have rightly pointed out that this technically means there can never be a defensive TD, so that logic does not apply to fantasy football scoring.

Isn't the answer just as simple as that? If your league scores an interception returned for a TD as a defensive TD, despite the fact that the NFL rule states that the intercepting player is technically an offensive player when he scores, then ask yourself why you score it as a defensive TD? Because the player is a member of the defense and started the play as a defensive player. Really, what other answer is there?

Why would the same logic not apply to McCardell? He is a member of the offense and started the play as an offensive player. Ergo, it's an offensive TD.

It seems so obvious to me, yet there have been hundreds of posts on the subject.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

My commish just took away my points for TD and DFR. It had no bearing on my game so I will put up a small fight and move on.

 

[tdoss]

Hey Cybergeek...CBSSportsline ruled it as defensive...right?CBSSportsline is a leading fantasy football outlet...right?Wait for it...CBSSportsline is partners with NFL.com...right?If you went to NFL.com...the web home of the NFL and wanted to play fantasy football...where would NFL.com link you to? CBSSportsline...right?Now...this is a question of how we should rule this for fantasy football...right?And here it is...the fatal blow...don't try to duck it...it's inevitable...Add all of the above together...what do you get?NFL (league in question) uses CBSSportsline for fantasy football (the sport in question) and CBSSportsline ruled it as a Defensive TD = OVVNED...

 

[Pick]

Week of the whinewhores.

 

[Cybergeek]

Hey tdoss...yes it has been documented that cbssportsline.com has ruled it a defensive touchdown...I don't believe that anyone has questioned that fact .The fact is NFL.com does not = the NFL...your faulty argument...until this most recent backpedaling...has been based on your false assertions...first that the the NFL and NFL.com are the same entity...get ready for this next one...it may sting a bit...NFL.com is just a web site and no more reliable than any other in reporting on the NFL...the NFL has many partners...NFL.com being one of them..should we also ask Rebok and Wilson to rule on this for us?...and secondly that because NFL.com...not the NFL...placed the fumble recovery and touchdown in a miscellaneous category in the same area where it lists defensive plays...that the NFL ruled it a defensive play as well.I think that the fatal blow was struck when you switched gears and laid your argument at the feet of cbssportsline's ruling...I sincerely hope that you don't get all of your fantasy football information from them...they are widely regarded in most fantasy football circles as a joke.As far as the question regarding a ruling for fantasy football purposes is concerned...I say first to follow the rules of your league if this situation is covered there...if your rules state that that your league manager is the final word...then so be it.In league's where the commissioner has to make a ruling because their rules don't cover it...I suggest that they score it the way the NFL scored it...as a return touchdown...that was neither an offensive or defensive score.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If your league scores an interception returned for a TD as a defensive TD, despite the fact that the NFL rule states that the intercepting player is technically an offensive player when he scores, then ask yourself why you score it as a defensive TD? Because the player is a member of the defense and started the play as a defensive player. Really, what other answer is there?

There were a few other answers given in this thread -- see especially pages 4-7. (I know I'm not helping. )

 

[ookook]

I think that "Just Win Baby" should consider becoming "Just Read Baby" in an effort to develop a more cogntively complex view that recognizes two-sided arguments (after admitting being too lazy to self-educate).Just MHO.--OOK!

 

[Schmegma]

I'm not interested in dragging this out any more so this will be my last post on the matter.

You only posted 2 more times after saying that. That's the only evidence I need that you are on a fishing expedition.Get over yourself.

 

[MrPack]

I saw McCardell run in for a touchdown,,,,,,Easy callMcCardell touchdown

 

[Tau837]

I think that "Just Win Baby" should consider becoming "Just Read Baby" in an effort to develop a more cogntively complex view that recognizes two-sided arguments (after admitting being too lazy to self-educate).

Just MHO.

--OOK!

Thanks for the advice. I did go back and nothing I read here changes my view on this issue, although I will say the "who is defending the goal when a turnover occurs" argument is the best one I have read for ruling this a defensive TD.It has been stated in this thread that CBS Sportsline scored this as a defensive TD. I am happy to say I don't play in any CBS Sportsline leagues. I do play in Yahoo, RTSports, and MFL leagues, however. They are all in agreement that the play should not be a defensive TD, although in some cases that decision can be overridden by league commissioners.

Yahoo:

Week 5 Tampa Bay - Indianapolis Scoring

We apologize for any confusion experienced with the scoring of the Keenan McCardell touchdown on Monday night.

The following details the final scoring for this play, which was applied to ALL leagues and cannot be modified within individual Custom Leagues.

1. Keenan McCardell received credit for a return touchdown. Therefore, if your league does not use return touchdowns, the touchdown will not count in your league. ** The Tampa Bay defense does not get credit for a return touchdown.

2. Keenan McCardell received credit for a fumble recovery only in those leagues using the fumble recovery category for individual players.

3. The Tampa Bay defense lost the points associated with a second defensive TD. Teams with the Tampa Bay defense for week 5 received points for only 1 touchdown.

Scoring for this play will not be reconsidered or adjusted further.

RTSports:

The AP originally ruled Kennan McCardell's fumble recovery a DEFENSIVE TD, but then correctly changed it to an OFFENSIVE TD. We actually consulted with the NFL office about this issue years ago. Unlike a special teams play -- where the special teams unit is either the offense or defense as soon as the ball passes the line of scrimmage -- during a normal play the offensive unit is still considered to be on offense throughout the life of the play, even if there is a change of possession.

The bottom line: McCardell's TD was on OFFENSE. Please do not call or send e-mail on this matter. The play stands as called.

MFL:

There's certainly been a lot of debate over the McCardell's second TD in the week #5 MNF game. That's not too surprising, as we believe that the last time that a play like this occurred was week #11 of the 1997 season.

First, a little explanation of the purpose of this document. It is not meant to serve as a definitive end-all, be-all answer as to how to score this play - based on all of the discussions and feedback we've received in the last two days, we are convinced that there is no one-size-fits all answer. This document is not meant to convince you we are right in our decision on how to score this play. Only you, and your league-mates, can decide the right way to score this play for your league.

This document is simply meant to further clarify our position, and describe what modifications we've made to our system to accomodate those who do not agree with our position and were unwilling or unable to follow our prior instructions regarding how to use the "Score Adjuster" for manually over-riding our scoring decision.

We've taken more than 36 hours to look at all the evidence since our initial decisionwas issued just a couple of hours after the game was over, talked to a variety of people, read countless message board posts both on our own board as well as other message boards, and have come to the following conclusion.

The NFL's official statistician is Elias Sports Bureau. We've personally spoken with their representatives and they've told us that their OFFICIAL ruling on the play was that it was a Fumble Recovery TD. They haven't and we've been told won't specify if it's an offensive or defensive fumble recovery TD - it is considered a "miscellaneous play" as far as the NFL is concerned. The one web page that shows this most clearly is the the NFL's Gamebook of that game, where that fumble is listed under the "Misc" heading, not the "Regular Defensive Play" or "Special Teams" heading. The differentiation between "offense" and "defense" is only relevant to fantasy football in this case, and is not required by their contract with the NFL. In short, contrary to many posts you might have read on the various message boards discussing this topic, the NFL does not officially characterize this as either an Offensive or Defensive play, regardless of what statistics you might find on the NFL.com site or other sites that imply (but never state) otherwise.

For further verification of this official decision, please read this San Jose Mercury News article.

Simply stated, one of the more common arguments that we've seen as an objection to scoring this as an offensive fumble recovery touchdown has been "The NFL considers this a defensive touchdown - how can you over-ride the NFL's decision?" is an invalid argument. The NFL does not consider this a defensive touchdown.

After looking at all of the facts, we still hold the opinion that this play should be properly scored as an Offensive Fumble Recovery TD for McCardell and not for the TBB DT position (see this page for our initial justification of this, which basically boiled down to the fact that the Tampa Bay offensive unit was on the field at the time the play happened), and based on the disucssions we've seen so far, the majority of our customers share that opinion.

I find the RTSports and MFL explanations much more persuasive than any counter arguments in this thread. Plus, their explanations support my own opinion!

 

[Tau837]

bump for ookook.