how come peyton manning doesnt have that fumble on his states? (1 Viewer)

[Rove!]

What's the confusion here?

Unless you get negative points for safeties, this should not count. Same as a sack in the end zone.

 

[Adam Harstad]

In the hierarchy of fumbles:

1. Fumble, maintain possession

2. Fumble, lose possession

3. Fumble, resulting in safety.

4. Fumble, resulting in TD

The order between 2 and 3 depends on the location. I'd rather lose a fumble at midfield than give up a safety. I'd rather give up a safety than lose a fumble at either one yard line (where you're either losing out on the 5-6 points of expected value from having the ball at your opponent's 1 yard line, or else you're immediately giving your opponent 5-6 points of expected value by handing them the ball at your own 1 yard line).

I'd go as follows:

1. Fumble, maintain possession.

2. Fumble near midfield, lose possession.

3. Fumble, resulting in safety.

4. Fumble in either red zone, lose possession.

5. Fumble through the opposition's end zone, resulting in a touchback and loss of possession.

6. Fumble, resulting in TD.
7. Fumble into the opponent's end zone, have the other team pick it up and return it 100 yards for a TD (a 10-12 point swing in expected value!)

 

[Adam Harstad]

At the end of the day, defenses should not be credited with a fumble recovery on plays where they do not recover a fumble. That seems pretty tautologically true. Words mean things. "Fumble recovery" means something very specific. Anything that is not a recovered fumble is not a fumble recovery.

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession). If a play ends in the end zone with the defense in possession of the ball, it is a touchdown. If a play ends in the end zone with the offense in possession of the ball, it is a safety. These are the only two choices. Teams with possession of the football cannot score safeties.

 

[skinsrule05]

At the end of the day, defenses should not be credited with a fumble recovery on plays where they do not recover a fumble. That seems pretty tautologically true. Words mean things. "Fumble recovery" means something very specific. Anything that is not a recovered fumble is not a fumble recovery.

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession). If a play ends in the end zone with the defense in possession of the ball, it is a touchdown. If a play ends in the end zone with the offense in possession of the ball, it is a safety. These are the only two choices. Teams with possession of the football cannot score safeties.

Well said, this pretty much makes it cut and dry.

 

[Joe Summer]

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession).

Actually, it's not impossible (assuming that you are defining 'defense' as 'the team that is playing defense at the start of the down').

It's just infinitesimally improbable.

 

[Rove!]

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession).

Actually, it's not impossible (assuming that you are defining 'defense' as 'the team that is playing defense at the start of the down').

It's just infinitesimally improbable.

makes me think of this play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eBrb00pdGw



I

 

[Adam Harstad]

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession).

Actually, it's not impossible (assuming that you are defining 'defense' as 'the team that is playing defense at the start of the down').

It's just infinitesimally improbable.

Barring multiple changes of possession, it's impossible. The team with possession of the football cannot score a safety. In fact, the safety is the only way to score without ever possessing the football.

 

[Joe Summer]

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession).

Actually, it's not impossible (assuming that you are defining 'defense' as 'the team that is playing defense at the start of the down').It's just infinitesimally improbable.

Barring multiple changes of possession, it's impossible. The team with possession of the football cannot score a safety. In fact, the safety is the only way to score without ever possessing the football.

It's not impossible. It's right there in the rulebook.Of course you realize there is a difference between "the team with possession of the football" (as you're now phrasing it) and "a defense" (as you originally phrased it).

A defense can absolutely score a safety without multiple changes of possession.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession).

Actually, it's not impossible (assuming that you are defining 'defense' as 'the team that is playing defense at the start of the down').It's just infinitesimally improbable.

Barring multiple changes of possession, it's impossible. The team with possession of the football cannot score a safety. In fact, the safety is the only way to score without ever possessing the football.

It's not impossible. It's right there in the rulebook.Of course you realize there is a difference between "the team with possession of the football" (as you're now phrasing it) and "a defense" (as you originally phrased it).

A defense can absolutely score a safety without multiple changes of possession.

I must be slow, because I'm still not getting it. Can you please give me an example of a situation where a defense recovers a fumble and still scores a safety that does not include multiple changes of possession?

 

[Joe Summer]

I must be slow, because I'm still not getting it. Can you please give me an example of a situation where a defense recovers a fumble and still scores a safety that does not include multiple changes of possession?

My pleasure:1. Offense fumbles at own 2-yard line

2. Defense recovers fumble

3. Defense fumbles at 2-yard line

4. Offense bats loose ball into and out of own endzone.

The defense has just scored a Safety.

There was only one change of possession.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I must be slow, because I'm still not getting it. Can you please give me an example of a situation where a defense recovers a fumble and still scores a safety that does not include multiple changes of possession?

My pleasure:1. Offense fumbles at own 2-yard line

2. Defense recovers fumble

3. Defense fumbles at 2-yard line

4. Offense bats loose ball into and out of own endzone.

The defense has just scored a Safety.

There was only one change of possession.

This would be a touchback.

 

[renesauz]

I must be slow, because I'm still not getting it. Can you please give me an example of a situation where a defense recovers a fumble and still scores a safety that does not include multiple changes of possession?

My pleasure:1. Offense fumbles at own 2-yard line

2. Defense recovers fumble

3. Defense fumbles at 2-yard line

4. Offense bats loose ball into and out of own endzone.

The defense has just scored a Safety.

There was only one change of possession.

You sure that what you just described wouldn't be a touchback?

 

[Joe Summer]

D'oh! Hold on, let me fix.

edit: Nothing to fix. I think I'm right. I just should have clarified in #4 that the loose ball was at rest.

 

[fantasycurse42]

D'oh! Hold on, let me fix.

You also told me to check the rules when I said a blocked PAT was a deadball.

 

[Joe Summer]

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETYSAFETYA Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided: (a) the impetus came from a player of that team; (b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

This rule should be changed.

If a fumble turns into a turnover, you got to score it fumble lost.

It's like a QB getting sacked in the endzone and not calling it a sack due to the sack resulting in a safety.

Stupid rule...

I don't think this is analogous to the fumble going out of the end zone.

The equivalent would be if while trying to evade the rush, the QB steps out of bounds in the end zone, wanting it to be ruled a sack for the defense.

I'm a little uninformed, so if the rules do call for it to be ruled a sack, then I apologize, and retract my post.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This rule should be changed.

If a fumble turns into a turnover, you got to score it fumble lost.

It's like a QB getting sacked in the endzone and not calling it a sack due to the sack resulting in a safety.

Stupid rule...

I don't think this is analogous to the fumble going out of the end zone.

The equivalent would be if while trying to evade the rush, the QB steps out of bounds in the end zone, wanting it to be ruled a sack for the defense.

I'm a little uninformed, so if the rules do call for it to be ruled a sack, then I apologize, and retract my post.

That is most certainly a sack - pretty sure the closest defender gets the credit here.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETYSAFETY

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus came from a player of that team;

(b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.

If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the scenario you described the Leon Lett play from the Super Bowl?

Leon Lett recovers a fumble, takes it down to the 2 yard line, where Don Beebe knocks it out of his hands and through the end zone. Ruled a touchback, Buffalo ball.

If I am again mistaken, you can go ahead and put me on ignore, as I have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

This rule should be changed.

If a fumble turns into a turnover, you got to score it fumble lost.

It's like a QB getting sacked in the endzone and not calling it a sack due to the sack resulting in a safety.

Stupid rule...

I don't think this is analogous to the fumble going out of the end zone.

The equivalent would be if while trying to evade the rush, the QB steps out of bounds in the end zone, wanting it to be ruled a sack for the defense.

I'm a little uninformed, so if the rules do call for it to be ruled a sack, then I apologize, and retract my post.

That is most certainly a sack - pretty sure the closest defender gets the credit here.

Haha, knew that was a risk when I posted. I'll see myself out, thank you.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETYSAFETY

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus came from a player of that team;

(b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.

If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETYSAFETY

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus came from a player of that team;

(b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.

If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

This is a TD for the defense if they have position on or behind the goaline...

If you describe the defense as obtaining possession on the 2 yard line, then fumbling, then having the ball knocked out of the back of the endzone, this is a touchback, unless somehow the ball finds it way 98 yards in the opposite direction, in which case it would be a safety.

The only way your scenario makes sense is if the offense has the ball on the opponents 2 yard line in a goal to go situation, the defense recovers a fumble outside of the endzone, then fumbles, then it is swatted out of the back of the endzone - this would be a safety.

 

[Joe Summer]

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETY

SAFETY

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus came from a player of that team;

(b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the scenario you described the Leon Lett play from the Super Bowl?

It's close, but it all comes down to the NFL's definition of "impetus":

Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch.

The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest

Since Lett's fumble was never "at rest", the impetus was attributed to Lett (and is therefore a touchback).But if Lett had fumbled on the 1-yard line, and Beebe had batted the ball into (and out of) the endzone while it was at rest, then the impetus would have been attributed to Beebe and it would have been a safety for Dallas.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

But if Lett had fumbled on the 1-yard line, and Beebe had batted the ball into the endzone while it was at rest, then the impetus would have been attributed to Beebe it would have been a safety for Dallas.

But what youre saying here is that since the ball is at rest, it is technically Buffalo's possession. So in the scenario where Lett fumbles on his own on the 1-yard line (say he drops the ball), it is at rest, and then Beebe swats at it, but instead of going out of the end zone it goes out at the 1 yard line, it would be Buffalo's ball?

 

[fantasycurse42]

I just double-checked and I think my scenario is accurate. Here's the quote from the rulebook:

SECTION 28 - SAFETY

SAFETY

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus came from a player of that team;

(b) it is not a touchdown.

Since the impetus in my scenario came from the offense, and since the ball is dead behind the offense's own goal line, it is therefore a safety.If the offense had batted the ball into the defense's goal line, then yes it would have been a touchback. But that's not what I'm describing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the scenario you described the Leon Lett play from the Super Bowl?

It's close, but it all comes down to the NFL's definition of "impetus":

Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch.

The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest

Since Lett's fumble was never "at rest", the impetus was attributed to Lett (and is therefore a touchback).But if Lett had fumbled on the 1-yard line, and Beebe had batted the ball into the endzone while it was at rest, then the impetus would have been attributed to Beebe it would have been a safety for Dallas.

Pretty sure this is incorrect - If there has been no change of possession, it doesn't matter who knocks it out (still Dallas possession), still a touchback.

 

[Joe Summer]

But if Lett had fumbled on the 1-yard line, and Beebe had batted the ball into the endzone while it was at rest, then the impetus would have been attributed to Beebe it would have been a safety for Dallas.

But what youre saying here is that since the ball is at rest, it is technically Buffalo's possession. So in the scenario where Lett fumbles on his own on the 1-yard line (say he drops the ball), it is at rest, and then Beebe swats at it, but instead of going out of the end zone it goes out at the 1 yard line, it would be Buffalo's ball?

In that scenario, it would be Dallas' ball at the 1-yard line. Buffalo never secured possession of the loose ball, so it would revert to whichever team last had possession of it.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

But if Lett had fumbled on the 1-yard line, and Beebe had batted the ball into the endzone while it was at rest, then the impetus would have been attributed to Beebe it would have been a safety for Dallas.

But what youre saying here is that since the ball is at rest, it is technically Buffalo's possession. So in the scenario where Lett fumbles on his own on the 1-yard line (say he drops the ball), it is at rest, and then Beebe swats at it, but instead of going out of the end zone it goes out at the 1 yard line, it would be Buffalo's ball?

In that scenario, it would be Dallas' ball at the 1-yard line. Bufflo never secured possession of the loose ball, so it would revert to whichever team last had possession of it.

But if Buffalo never secured possession, how can the same ball go back to Dallas if it goes out at the 1, but be ruled a safety for Dallas if it goes out of the end zone?

I think fantasycurse42 has it right. Whoever is ruled to have possession last determines touchback/safety, and the ball being at rest has no bearing on this. Dallas would be ruled to have possession unless Beebe actually picked the ball up and maintained control before losing it out of the end zone.

 

[Sarnoff]

At the end of the day, defenses should not be credited with a fumble recovery on plays where they do not recover a fumble. That seems pretty tautologically true. Words mean things. "Fumble recovery" means something very specific. Anything that is not a recovered fumble is not a fumble recovery.

I would also point out that it's impossible for a defense to both recover a fumble *AND* score a safety on the same play (barring multiple changes of possession). If a play ends in the end zone with the defense in possession of the ball, it is a touchdown. If a play ends in the end zone with the offense in possession of the ball, it is a safety. These are the only two choices. Teams with possession of the football cannot score safeties.

Well said, this pretty much makes it cut and dry.

Yup. Likewise, Manning shouldn't be charged with a "fumble lost". Manning gets hit hard in the end zone, and goes down, safety. Manning gets hit hard in the end zone, loses control of the ball in the process, it goes out the back of the end zone, safety. I don't see why you'd charge him with a "fumble lost" in the second scenario when it wasn't recovered. If your fantasy scoring only penalizes for "fumbles lost" (and not just regular "fumbles" regardless of which team recovers), why should he be penalized in one and not the other? Makes no sense. Nor would it make sense to double-reward the DST in the second scenario since both truly have the same result--merely a safety.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I must be slow, because I'm still not getting it. Can you please give me an example of a situation where a defense recovers a fumble and still scores a safety that does not include multiple changes of possession?

My pleasure:1. Offense fumbles at own 2-yard line

2. Defense recovers fumble

3. Defense fumbles at 2-yard line

4. Offense bats loose ball into and out of own endzone.

The defense has just scored a Safety.

There was only one change of possession.

Great call. Like others, I would have intuitively just assumed that would be ruled a touchback, with the team that originally had possession maintaining it and moving out to the 20 yard line.

 

[LargeMouthBass]

I have a headache...

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

My last post here.

liar. I love when the Sharts double down on the stupid.

Although I do sometimes wonder, you know, how we survived as a species with people like you in the gene pool.

You have called me stupid 4x now, & while I have ignored it until now, I will finally address this and give you a cruel dose of reality.

At the age of 30, I have achieved more then you will in 10 lifetimes - I handle partnerships for a publicly traded company worth billions. My decisions impact investors worldwide, who do your decisions impact? My decisions have helped investors almost triple their investments in the last 13 months, again what have yours done? My little boy is 10 months old and has more in his bank account then you will in your lifetime, how does that make you feel? Statistics show that in 2012 almost 1 out of 3 people between the ages of 18 - 35 live with their parents - I would blindly wager a few G's that you fall in that bucket.

Numerous leadership seminars I have attended are useful in identifying character traits - One that is blatantly present with you is your unnecessary and repetitive name calling/insulting of another for minimal reasons... This type of behavior is endlessly classified in the professional world as a loser who will most likely deflect blame. Basically you're a type A loser, congrats! On the other hand, I am the definition of the American Dream, coming from nothing to having everything...

To answer your question on how we have survived as a species is simple, it is called survival of the fittest, & while there are several schools of thought on this one, I like Darwin's the best, go read up on it - So while my bloodlines will continue to prosper for generations, yours will continue to dig ditches, paint houses, & clean up my garbage.

SOMEONE SOUND THE SERIOUS BUSINESS ALERT

 

[renesauz]

HOw is this thread still going?????

 

[Sarnoff]

Giants punter Weatherford had the ball snapped over his head, he tried to recover the ball. Had he kicked it out the back of the end zone for a safety, he would have prevented a TD from being scored against the Giants. But, despite having never touched the ball, some people here think he should be charged with a fumble lost in that scenario. Also, some people think such situations are "rare", yet they happen pretty frequently in the NFL and rules should be clear.

 

[Mario Kart]

My last post here.

liar. I love when the Sharts double down on the stupid.

Although I do sometimes wonder, you know, how we survived as a species with people like you in the gene pool.

You have called me stupid 4x now, & while I have ignored it until now, I will finally address this and give you a cruel dose of reality.

At the age of 30, I have achieved more then you will in 10 lifetimes - I handle partnerships for a publicly traded company worth billions. My decisions impact investors worldwide, who do your decisions impact? My decisions have helped investors almost triple their investments in the last 13 months, again what have yours done? My little boy is 10 months old and has more in his bank account then you will in your lifetime, how does that make you feel? Statistics show that in 2012 almost 1 out of 3 people between the ages of 18 - 35 live with their parents - I would blindly wager a few G's that you fall in that bucket.

Numerous leadership seminars I have attended are useful in identifying character traits - One that is blatantly present with you is your unnecessary and repetitive name calling/insulting of another for minimal reasons... This type of behavior is endlessly classified in the professional world as a loser who will most likely deflect blame. Basically you're a type A loser, congrats! On the other hand, I am the definition of the American Dream, coming from nothing to having everything...

To answer your question on how we have survived as a species is simple, it is called survival of the fittest, & while there are several schools of thought on this one, I like Darwin's the best, go read up on it - So while my bloodlines will continue to prosper for generations, yours will continue to dig ditches, paint houses, & clean up my garbage.

SOMEONE SOUND THE SERIOUS BUSINESS ALERT

Man, if that kind of response results from being called "stupid" four times, I wonder how he would feel if someone took a dumb (crap, #hit, #2) and left it on his penthouse "welcome" sign near his elevator. Geez, we all can't rape and pillage like this guy can but god forbid someone calls him stupid.