6 points.Of course I didn't give him any rushing yds, it wasn't a rushing play from scrimmage. it was a fumble recovery by an offensive player.Just because the NFL is stupid enough to rule any fumble recovery a Defensive one, doesn't mean we have to be. We can use common sense here.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
"FBG Commish Ruling" on Mon Nite - Our .02 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tdoss
- Start date
The NFL rules were not written for the Fantasy Football game. Therefore, you must use common, logical sense to determine freak plays like this.I agree with Bill Davies and have made those same arguements to my league (as commish) all day to day.Use your head and not your FF heart.QuadPS- Whatever you do, define a rule to cover freak plays for next year. And one other thing. Is this the first time this has ever happened? I think not. So, why are all the commish sites split on how to score this?
Burning Sensation
Footballguy
I agree, Mcardell should get 6, which goes right along with my theory of treating the play like a punt(special teams)
To Bill,There's a pretty simple way to defeat your argument. When Doss intercepted the ball, he was on defense. While Indy then switches to offense, any outcome of Doss's action is scored from the standpoint of how it was initiated. What I'm getting at is that the classification at the start of the event defines it, not the classification at the conclusion. Taking this to the next step, when McCardell picks up the fumble, he is on defense at the start of that event. Even though Tampa switches back to offense, the outcome of the event is scored based upon it's classification at the onset...in other words a defensive TD. Pretty clear and it allows for or standard defensive TDs and matches the NFL's scoring.
Pretty much Rich Conway's "Scenario C" from page four of this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg R
Footballguy
I think so long as people try to stick with the NFL's definitions, either side can make correct arguments that show an inconsistency in the other sides argument. There is no single right answer to it sticking with the NFL's terminology.
Just make your own clear, concise rule that is easy to interpret in all situations. Something like:
If a kick takes place on the play, it is a special teams play. All players on both sides of the ball are part of their team's special team's unit for purposes of scoring fantasy points.
If a kick does not take place on the play, all players on the team snapping the ball are considered individual offensive players for the entire duration of the play. All players on the team not snapping the ball are considered team defensive players for the entire duration of the play.
Now it's easy to interpet. Punter fumbles the ball, recovered by the other team and run in for a TD? No kick took place, so it's a regular offensive and defensive play. Punter has the punt blocked? A kick occurred (which was then blocked), so it's a special teams play. Rushing play where both teams fumble the ball back and forth 8 times? Offense at snap is the offense the whole way through, defense at snap is defense whole way through.
It's so simple it just might work.
Just make your own clear, concise rule that is easy to interpret in all situations. Something like:
If a kick takes place on the play, it is a special teams play. All players on both sides of the ball are part of their team's special team's unit for purposes of scoring fantasy points.
If a kick does not take place on the play, all players on the team snapping the ball are considered individual offensive players for the entire duration of the play. All players on the team not snapping the ball are considered team defensive players for the entire duration of the play.
Now it's easy to interpet. Punter fumbles the ball, recovered by the other team and run in for a TD? No kick took place, so it's a regular offensive and defensive play. Punter has the punt blocked? A kick occurred (which was then blocked), so it's a special teams play. Rushing play where both teams fumble the ball back and forth 8 times? Offense at snap is the offense the whole way through, defense at snap is defense whole way through.
It's so simple it just might work.
The Commissioner
Footballguy
BassNBrew,You have articulated the ONLY argument I have heard all day (out of 608 e-mails! and hundreds more posts on boards) that has a basis in logic and defies my interpretation. Although I do not think there are rules in ANY fantasy league to reinforce this notion, this is the only notion by which this could be a defensive TD. That leaves us to wonder if it has become custom to treat defensive TDs as such because they are scored by defesive players or, as you identify, it is their designation at the genesis of the event.I still disagree with that explanation, but would accept it if a league had that spelled out. I think most FF leagues are informal and simply for fun and the D/ST became so because these are the people that start a play defending their end zone from an offense trying to score or they are people tasked with returning kicks. I don't think it started as complicated as we're making it. So although I disagree with the application of your explanation, I would support it if a league chose to use that as a definition.
What's frustrating is that I'm the commish in a league where a game's outcome will ride on what I decide. The two teams are in the same division and will likely be chasing the 2nd and final playoff spot. We don't have this covered in the rules. In the past we've defaulted to the NFL's scoring or Elias. We just started using MFL this year and of course they're ruling the other direction. My ruling on a situation earlier in the year (Carolina's D or ST blocked a punt for a safety) was that we would defualt to our written rules first (which would probably be the NFL's ruling in this case) for the first instance, but thereafter we would change or rules to match the scoring software. I'm not sure what I'm going to do and the most perplexing part is that MFL is still showing a Defensive fumble recovery. That can't play it both ways, so I'm hoping they change one or the other before I have to step in. I may be soliciting your ruling with all the specifics later in the week.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
An identical incident occurred in Week 11, 1997.Rich Gannon, then with Kansas City, tossed up an interception to Jacksonville's Chris Hudson. During the return, Hudson was hit by Andre Rison and fumbled the football. The Chiefs' Danan Hughes picked up the loose ball and ran it in for a TD.Now, both sides of this argument have their merits and I won't go there. I will, however, agree with the poster who said that he wasn't going to let the NFL run HIS fantasy league. When the above play happened, my league held a quick vote, determined that we would score it as an offensive touchdown and set a precedent that made last night's call an easy one for us (important, too, as it determined the final outcome of a game).The intent of our scoring rules played a large part in how we scored it back in '97. Common sense told us that it wasn't a defensive TD.
I don't understand... if Andre Rison wasn't playing defense, then what was he doing tackling the Jaguars' ballcarrier?The obvious corrolary here is that after the interception, McCardell and crew were acting as defenders.
Why Tampa Bay's defense needs to be narrowly defined as Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, etc. is beyond me. As long as the other team has the ball, whatever 11 guys are on the field are playing defense... even if the play didn't start out that way!
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I understand the logic of the people who support your side of this argument. However, a majority of owners in my league decided that it was not our intent for that kind of play to be scored a defensive TD when we established our scoring rules back in '92.The owner who lost his game in our league because of the '97 precedent is certainly not happy with the outcome but he can't complain about due process. He's had six years to propose a specific rule change about this issue and put it to a league-wide vote. If he did, I would guess that he'd lose by about the same 2-1 margin as happened in '97.
OK, let's stay with your logic here......The play begins, Tampa is on Offense/Indy Defense, right? OK
The interception occurs, Tampa is now on Defense/Indy Offense, right? You said "McCardell and crew were acting as defenders" OK
That means Indy is now on the offensive.
Now the fumble occurs, right? OK
According to your line of thinking, Indy's crew would now be acting as defenders, correct? McCardell and crew are now back on the offensive, and McCardell scores a TD.
Offensive TD........ Your logic, I just took it and explained it out, through the plays entirety(is that even a word?),,,,,,right?
I think this is the most important issue on the question. The NFL may choose to rule whatever they like. Similarly, each individual fantasy league may choose to rule whatever they like. For instance, the NFL has determined that safeties are worth 2 points. In my fantasy league, we award 4 points for a safety, because a safety is, effectively, a turnover as well.In this situation, the NFL can call the touchdown whatever they like, an offensive, defensive, or special teams touchdown, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what each fantasy league must do.In my leagues, I don't care if Paul Tagliabue himself show up on my doorstep and tells me that they have scored it a defensive TD for Tampa. It will not be scored that way in my leagues.
Not if offensive TDs directly stemming from defensive turnovers on the same play are awarded to the defense. Back to Rich Conway's "Scenario C" again, as well as BassNBrew's interpretation.This play isn't so simple that pure logic can get you anywhere. It comes down to the perceived intent of your league's rules (unless they are specific enough to cover this issue explicitly, in which case divining their underlying intent is unnecessary).
Hi B&B,The way I personally handle these tough ones that you're describing? Agree before the season that one source will be the definining last word. It can be NFL.com, the commish, Footballguys.com commish, or Bill at the barber shop. Really doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone agrees that at some point, some one will say "this is how it is" and you'll all be ok with it and move on.I'd encourage every league to make their league rules as detailed as possible. BUT to also have that final say definitive answer that everyone agrees to abide by.My .02J
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commissioner
Footballguy
I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE ARGUMENT "THE NFL CATEGORIZES IT AS A MISC. DEFENSIVE TD" LAST NIGHT AND THEN THIS HAPPENS! FUNNY HOW COMMON SENSE AND LIFE'S EXPERIENCES CLEAR THIS ALL UP:I went to the dealership last night to buy a Windstar. While tirekicking, I walked over to the lot marked, "Used Cars." I thought maybe I'd catch a deal. Right between a 1999 Ford Taurus and a 2001 Dodge Neon, I saw this beautiful Harley Davidson. So I asked the salesman, "Is this a used car?" He laughed and said, "No, but she sure is purdy." I got weirded out a bit, but went back to my original question, "Ummm, IT is attractive, but is it really a used car?" He straightened his act up a bit and answered more seriously, "No, sir. It is a 2000 Harley with only 750 miles. Its owner traded it in for an Excursion because he had a kid." I became a little inddignant and asked to speak to the manager. He was nervous I was pissed about the "purdy" comment. I asked the General Manager (Sales manager was out) why a motorcycle was in the used car lot. He said laughingly, "Because we don't have a used motorcycle lot." I said, you are a Ford Dealership - the leader of manufacturing cars in the free world - and you don't have a used motorcycle lot? Why not?" He answered, "Because we don't get used motorcycles all that much and its not practical to build an entire lot for such a rare event. We just place our used motorcycles here in the used car lot. Sure, they're not cars, but they are used." I asked, "Doesn't it cause confusion?" He answered, "Most of our customers figure out it is a motorcycle instead of a car just by looking at it. I guess we let common sense take over." Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?" The answer was "four," not five, because "calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one."Now the critics are going to say, "You're right. Calling it an offensive TD doesn't make it one." But those folks missed the point. The point is sometimes you put things were they don't belong because the effort to create a proper place is too much for the limited benefit. And puting it in that place doesn't make it one of those things. It makes it one of what it is that happens to be residing where it is because there is no other home for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, I argue that you have to use common sense and the intent of the defense position on your fantasy roster to rule on this play.The intent of the defense position is to prevent the other team from scoring when they snap the ball. That's how people draft defenses. Not a single person playing fantasy football drafted Minnesota's defense this year because Culpepper threw the most INTs in the league last year, and they were counting on him doing the same this year so they could potentially get defensive points from Minnesota after a Culpepper INT. Sound ridiculous? Well it is. But, if you believe some of the people here, we'll need to factor that into how we draft defenses next year.Common sense tells us that the Tampa Bay defensive unit that people drafted was not on the field for that particular play. They shouldn't be able to score points if they're not on the field.
Mr Pack -- You're putting words into my mouth there bud. I never said INDY was on offense once they intercepted the ball.I know many folks will find what I'm about to say overly complicates the issue, but it offers a very useful distinction IMO: instead of limiting ourselves to defining teams as either the "offensive team" or the "defensive team", I'd also include a third category, of "return team". (This dovetails nicely with the "real" football view that there are three phases to the game: offense, defense, and special teams.) Thus when a team gains possession of the ball by way of receiving a kickoff or punt, or by forcing a turnover, they become the "return team". Any result of a team acting as a "return team" is credited for FF purposes to the D/ST. Thus, if the "return team" does a spectacular job and scores a TD, then 6 points are awarded to the D/ST.
So, in the McCardell case, Tampa went from Off to Def to Ret... Indy went from Def to Ret to Def.
If you don't like the term "return team", another way to view it is, any time a team comes into possession of the ball during the middle of the play (again via kick or turnover; basically any time OTHER than when they snap the ball to begin the play), that team immediately enters "special teams" mode.
The net effect of all this is, as I stated in an earlier post, whenever a change of possession occurs, then both teams become eligible to socre a D/ST TD.
Weapon of Mass Instruction
Watch my feet!
Am I blind or is it not the case the David DOES count the fumble recovery FOR the Defense (TB) but not the TD for the Defense (TB)?It is BOTH or it is NEITHER
I am the commissioner of my league. It does NOT affect our outcomes either way.
It does not affect me making the cut in the 15k contest. I will gain 6 total points if both count, I will lose 2 if neither count.
You're right, you didn't come out and actually SAY Indy was on offense, but you did say
SO am I to now believe since you don't think Indy was offensive that there are now TWO defenses?Why is it so difficult to understand that one team is on offense, and one team is on defense once the ball is snapped until the play is blown dead? How can there be any other interpretation? How is this NOT the most simplified of the scenarios?
You talk about a return team too...... How does that simplify ANYTHING?
And if they become a "return team" following a recovery of their own fumble, ala Alan Ricard?The upshot is that this is a opinion thing. Some people will feel one way, and others will feel another way. We cannot use logic to solve this, as there are legitimate arguments on both sides (See my Scenarios A, B, and C from earlier pages in this thread, as well as BassNBrew's much clearer restatement of Scenario C). Ultimately, each league is going to have to rule on this themselves. My leagues have made the determination that McCardell gets 6 points, while TB's defense gets nothing.
I haven't changed any rules buddy. What I have done is state:A) how my league rules handle this situation, and
B) what is, in my opinion, the best way to approach this and other similar situations.
I believe the addition of the "return team" concept clears up about 90% of the confusion that comes about from the occasional "wacky" NFL play. The inflexibility borne of forcing each team to be only on offense or only on defense is what causes the bulk of these problems. Again, in my opinion. I certainly understand and respect the fact that other opinions exist, and other scoring systems treat this situation differently.
Greg R
Footballguy
It's not a wrinkle. If a kick took place, then by that set of rules it's a special teams play. If the blockers got to the ball before he kicked it, then it's a defensive play by those rules.The only interpretation you have to do with this set of rules is "did a kick take place". Just use a similar easy-to-interpret definition of what a kick is (player's foot must actually contact the ball in an attempt to punt, kick a FG or kickoff), and then things are black and white and these debates go away.
LivinNsc
Footballguy
you completely missed his point. His point was that to determine that McCardell was now on Defense was to view him as so due to the change in possession ONLY...the change of possession is the key to McCardell being considered on Defense. He is pointing out that if you follow that logic all the way through to its end then you would never have Defensive TD's cause after the "change of possession" (the issue that makes McCardell on Defensivve in this case) would cause all Defensive players to be Offensive players when they gain possesion of the ball. He is saying that you can not rule who is on Defense and who is on Offense based on a change in possession after the snap. His logic (which makes 100% sense) is that if you allow change of possession to determine a players "status" (ie Def. or Off.) then you will never have Defensive TD's. The rule should state for those using Team Defenses that at the time of the snap if the team is on Defense then they are the Defensive team throughout the play...as well as if the team that starts on Offense at the time of the snap they are the Offensive team throughout the entire play.
The Commissioner
Footballguy
LivinNsc worded it perfectly. I am only saying that the only way to call McCardell a defender is to acknowledge that the change in possession made him so. But if you do that, then you need to replace his status as an offensive player when Tampa/he regained possession. The debate was purely theoretical and designed to demonstrate the opposite - we have ALREADY, as a subindustry, rejected the notion that a change of possession is a triggering event. The proof that we have rejected this is in the fact that had Doss returned the interception for a TD, then we would recognize that as a defensive touchdown. Yet, if you believe the change in possession is a triggering event then by your own admission Doss is then on offense. See, that interpretation doesn't make sense. And even if it did, then Tampa Bay still wasn't on defense.
At the end of the day, we have designated the team on defense at the snap of the ball as the defensive team throughout the play whether we want to admit it or not. The change of possession is a moot point, because we reject this out of necessity. If I was not clear about this before, I owe a debt of gratitude to LivinNsc for clarifying it more eloquently than I.
And someone else also pointed out that one of the excellent byproducts of this is that most leagues will tackle this issue now or during the offseason with rules to define how to handle the situation. Those will be some interesting debates since each side of the issue seems shocked that the other side can't understand their logic.
WARNING: MUDDY WATER ALERT!
One final thing that kind of does drive another point home (from an opposing view) is that if this were Cincinnati and Arizona and the early Sunday game instead of Monday Night Football (i.e. only 83 people saw the game, live and on TV), AND the player did not score, this would have simply appeared as an innocuous fumble recovery for the defense and no one would have been the wiser. So at least in this hypothetical case, the fact that this was a high profile defense in a high profile game makes a world of difference. No one would have questioned a fumble recovery by Peter Warrick or Rudi Joohnson in the hypothetical game. It would have shown as a defensive fumble recovery and return of however many yards and I would have gotten some sleep in the last two nights!
I'm off to bed now. G'nite.
At the end of the day, we have designated the team on defense at the snap of the ball as the defensive team throughout the play whether we want to admit it or not. The change of possession is a moot point, because we reject this out of necessity. If I was not clear about this before, I owe a debt of gratitude to LivinNsc for clarifying it more eloquently than I.
And someone else also pointed out that one of the excellent byproducts of this is that most leagues will tackle this issue now or during the offseason with rules to define how to handle the situation. Those will be some interesting debates since each side of the issue seems shocked that the other side can't understand their logic.
WARNING: MUDDY WATER ALERT!
One final thing that kind of does drive another point home (from an opposing view) is that if this were Cincinnati and Arizona and the early Sunday game instead of Monday Night Football (i.e. only 83 people saw the game, live and on TV), AND the player did not score, this would have simply appeared as an innocuous fumble recovery for the defense and no one would have been the wiser. So at least in this hypothetical case, the fact that this was a high profile defense in a high profile game makes a world of difference. No one would have questioned a fumble recovery by Peter Warrick or Rudi Joohnson in the hypothetical game. It would have shown as a defensive fumble recovery and return of however many yards and I would have gotten some sleep in the last two nights!
I'm off to bed now. G'nite.
Last edited by a moderator:
I for one think that the "to follow it to the logical conclusion there would be no defense poitns scored" is what is known as a slippery slope argument in rhetorical circles and is well known also as a logical fallacy. There is no need to follow it to that end. That side of the argument is what matters is who is defending their own goal at the time the fumble is caused. There need not be 3 switches of possession. It is the returned fumble that results in the score. "The Commissioner's" argument that we have rejected this notion is simply not true. The notion that what matters is who is defending their goal is does not involve the slippery slope that no defense would ever score and is consistent with how interceptions are ruled.
XFFFCOMMISH
Footballguy
Not sure if this was posted yet so if it has I apologize. My league homepage RTSports.com scored this as a offensive TD, not a defensive TD. Here was their explanation:"The AP originally ruled Keenan 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. BUT REMEMBER: Your commissioner can always change the score of any game for any reason by simply selecting the "Edit" button next to the score in the game log page. "This is the way our league voted on this issue 5 years ago. It makes perfect sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commissioner
Footballguy
ookook,Can't sleep. I knew this was coming.You are correct about following something to its logical conclusion in the world of philosophy is a slippery slope. But the slippery slope argument doesn't hold water here because we already can define that conclusion. It's not theoretical.The fallacy of the slippery slope argument is that you are using fear of a projected outcome by using one's logic and carrying it out to the nth degree (some theoretical point at the end of the continuum) to prove some unintended result could happen that your underdeveloped point hasn't yet reached. That's not what's happening here. We know the FINAL outcome. The point, or in this case event, is fully developed. Therefore, the fallacy of the slippery slope doesn't apply. There's no longer a slope. We've reached rock bottom. We are applying rules to an existing event.However, your point about timing is what I conceded to BNB. If you believe the designations at the exact time of the event should prevail, and I thiink that is one valid interpretation, then TB would have been on D for purposes of this TD. I reject the notion that it was this thought out, but if a league had this as their definition in some hyper-proactive ruling, then I think that is a perfectly logical and acceptable ruling.I just think fantasy football is less formal than that and in its original someone said, "You see those slim guys on the left of the ball? They're wearing jerseys in the 10s, 30s, 60s, and 80s? We'll call them offense. And those fat guys on the right of the ball? They're wearings 20s and 50s and 70s and 90s? We'll call them defense." And that was that. I think this debate is about people trying to make sophisticated arguments to state that an offense can be on defense in the same play. I don't thiink the intent for for the interpretation to be so sophisticated. I think, at least in its origin, the intent was to create a game to enhance your fun and the fat guys are the defense. Period.I doubt the guys that started fantasy football in a bar in Oakland in the 1970's were thinking, "Reginald, should there be a change in possession, Biff and I have most righteously determined that thou shall rule that a defensive TD. After a fetching game of croquet, I think we shall celebrate the greatness of our wisdom in defining this matter players of this great game for many generations to come." My guess is that they said, "Damn! Did you see Biletnikoff crush that defender and Blanda run it in? S*&T! That was the greatest play by a quarterback and wide receiver ever. Even when they get intercepted this is best offense ever."So it comes down to common sense. And depending on your school of thought, there are varying views of what common sense is in this discussion. That's part of what makes this game great.But by no means is demonstrating how to apply an existing rule on an exiting matter vulnerable to the slippery slope argument.
The Commissioner
Footballguy
XFFF,
Thank you. I did catch that, but didn't highlight it. The important distinction here is not only did they rule based what the AP said, they consulted the NFL office and THEY (the NFL) stated that the offensive team remains the offensive team throughout the duration of the play.
THAT is why we have defensive TDs. Not because designations at a specific moment in time dictate those designation or because of multiple changes in possession.
Yeah RTSports.com for bring sanity to this issue and thank you XFFF for bringing sanity to this debate.
The Commissioner
Thank you. I did catch that, but didn't highlight it. The important distinction here is not only did they rule based what the AP said, they consulted the NFL office and THEY (the NFL) stated that the offensive team remains the offensive team throughout the duration of the play.
THAT is why we have defensive TDs. Not because designations at a specific moment in time dictate those designation or because of multiple changes in possession.
Yeah RTSports.com for bring sanity to this issue and thank you XFFF for bringing sanity to this debate.
The Commissioner
Wow - my logicv is so much simpler - your league's rules probably say somethign like a player passing for a TD = 4 pts, a player receiving or rushing a TD = 6 pts. McCardell's play is neither b/c it did not result from advancing the ball from the LOS.Your league may have IDP rules - if so, McCardell's FR for a T should be counted under that heading.Your league may not have IDP rules and may have defeensive scoring - in which case a FR for a TD goes to the team defense.Your league may have a rule coverting this situation (ie - any player who scores a touchdown gets 6 pts, or ALL TDs are worth 6 pts). Then McCardell is awarded 6 pts.Conceptually, in any other manner, is irrelevent b/c the NFL scored it a defensive TD, even though the defensive score was made by an offensive player.
wharf rat
Footballguy
here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.First, a league has to delcare it's official stat source. - ours in NFL.com.They are crediting J.Wade (TB center) with a defensive tackle and a defensive forced fumble.They are crediting K.McCardell with a defensive fumble recovery and a defensive TD.The Bucs were clearly "on defense" after the change of possession (interception).
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Negative, our league will score itself any da## way it chooses to.
In any given situation, common sense can lead to multiple (and perhaps equally valid) conclusions. To me, it is common sense from my own experience playing football that when I attempt to tackle somoene who has the football it is a defensive play. Therefore if take the ball out of their hands while tackling them and advance it to the end zone it was a RESULT of a defensive play. It didn't really matter which side of the ball I started on.As far as whether technically it is a slippery slope the point is the same. There is no need to worry about change of 3 possessions and no possible defensive scoring. All that needs to be clear is which team was defending their goal at the time the play was made that resulted in the score. In this case it also didn't really matter which side of the ball I started on. Nor do I endorse the argument that there cannot be two defenses on the field at the same time. By the "who was defending their goal at the time of the play that resulted in the score" there are never two defenses on the field at the same time. The point is that a turnover by definition is caused and can only be caused by the team defending their goal and it is the turnover that results in the score.Consider if TB had themselves subsequently fumbled and IND had returned it for a score. That should also be a DEF TD because we credit defenses with causing turnovers and offenses cannot cause a turnover (because they posses the ball and are advancing toward the oppenents goal).
DeadStroke
Footballguy
The Commissioner,I have read through your responses to all of this and I have yet to see this one addressed. If it has, I apologize. I appreciate the time that you have put in addressing this situation.If Indy throws a pick and it is returned for a TD, every fantasy league that I have been in, counts that score against TB's D (when awarding points against bonuses), despite TB's D not being on the field. I think this logic follows directly from your interpretation of who is offense and defense. If you assume that TB was not playing D, then the fantasy leagues should not charge an interception returned for a td against TB's D. Every league that I have been in charges the interception thrown by the offense and returned for a td, against the defense.So, by using the example and the rules above, TB D can be scored on after the offense throws an interception, shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of forcing a fumble and returning it for a touchdown?
tdoss
Footballguy
Commish...sorry but that used car analogy doesn't work per se...If it were a Car Dealership...that had a Used Car Lot and a New Car Lot and they got the motorcycle for trade...and you came upon it in their "Used Car Lot" section...then that works. It's not a Used Car...but...for some reason...the owner of that Car Dealership decided that out of the two places he could place that motorcycle...he decided to make a "Misc" section in his Used Car lot section.The NFL has two main spots to put that TD...under the Offensive section or Defensive...and for some reason they determined it would be best to create a "Misc" section under...yep...you guessed it..."Defense"...I hear the logic and can absolutely understand why everyone feels it should be Offensive...however I equally hear the other side of the argument...and in the end...the NFL's decision to place it under Defense tips the scales.
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.
The Commissioner
Footballguy
tdoss,It seems as though most folks that support the defensive TD argument are ignoring the philosophical debate going on and the facts and rules and are hanging their hat on the NFL's classification of this TD as a Def. - Misc. It has been the contention of many folks that the NFL stuck McCardell's TD under Defense - Misc. because there was no where else to put it. It took dozens of attempts at making this assertion until someone finally took the bait and suggested: WAIT! THE NFL HAD THE CHANCE TO PUT IT IN THE CATEGORY OFFENSIVE - MISC. AND CHOSE NOT TO.No one took the bait for a while, but finally you did. Thank you.If you can show me through www.NFL.com or any other source where the NFL had an opportunity to put that play in this category called Offense - Misc. and chose not to, I will concede the entire debate to you and your position.When you have the law on your side, you fight the law. When you have the facts on your side, you fight the facts. I believe both sides have just converged. 
Please find the category - Offense - Misc. that would apply to such a TD and demonstrate the NFL's assertion that they considered and rejected such a classification and you win. It's that simple!If you cannot find such a category, and cannot demonstrate that this possibility had been considered by the NFL and rejected, then PLEASE let us stop with this tired notion that the NFL has ruled on this matter from their ivory tower and have ordained it a defensive TD. It simply isn't true. 
Please find the category - Offense - Misc. that would apply to such a TD and demonstrate the NFL's assertion that they considered and rejected such a classification and you win. It's that simple!If you cannot find such a category, and cannot demonstrate that this possibility had been considered by the NFL and rejected, then PLEASE let us stop with this tired notion that the NFL has ruled on this matter from their ivory tower and have ordained it a defensive TD. It simply isn't true.
The Commissioner
Footballguy
Deadstroke,I have answered your question to your brother Mike through an e-mail.The Commissioner
