Kevin Curtis 11-23 (1 Viewer)

[BobbyLayne]

The answer is:

It depends on how your league scoring was setup in summer 2007.

December opinions on this beaten to death topic are useless.

An offensive fumble recovery isn't exactly like scoring 6 TDs. It happens several times every year. If your league wasn't setup properly to score this as a TD - or made a conscientous decision before the season began to not count this as a TD - shame on your commish. Plus shame on you for playing in a league with sloppy rules.

Stat Categories: Passing Yards (25 yards per point)

Passing Touchdowns (4)

Interceptions (-2)

Rushing Yards (10 yards per point)

Rushing Touchdowns (6)

Reception Yards (10 yards per point)

Reception Touchdowns (6)

Return Touchdowns (6)

2-Point Conversions (2)

Fumbles Lost (-2)

Offensive Fumble Return TD (6)

We ain't building rockets here, folks.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

most recent response from Fanball after showing them how they scored the McAllister TD last year.

"Thank you for contacting Fanball Customer Service. We apologize for the confusion however, we just were contacted by our programmers and were notified that on Tuesday when the scoring is finalized Kevin Curtis will be credited with a 1 yard rushing TD. Thank you"

So it supposedly will be credited to him tomorrow.

So Fanball is changing it, but according to NFL.com, it's still not a rushing TD:"Kevin Curtis, 0 yd (David Akers kick is good), 13:15. Drive: 3 plays, 73 yards in 1:45"

"TOUCHDOWNS 5

Rushing 1

Passing 3

Interceptions 0

Kickoff Returns 0

Fumble Returns 1

Punt Returns 0 "

"Rushing ATT YDS TD LG

B. Westbrook 17 100 0 21

C. Buckhalter 4 37 1 20

D. McNabb 6 37 0 40

R. Brown 1 10 0 10 "

No K. Curtis...

So, the change that Fanball is making is limited to users of their service, correct?

 

[Filthy]

Whether it's software or a rule, you can't change it after the season starts for the following and most important reason IMO; other plays like this could have occurred earlier in the year and those players should have been credited too. Doing this could have affected the standings and ultimately who got into the playoffs/championship. In some cases the tiebreaker is points, so two teams tied with a differential of less than 6 points could change if you go back and credit these points. How many guys barely got into/or knocked out of the playoffs by less than 6 points?

To those that think you should 'fix it' or 'give him the points' or 'do what's right' sorry, in doing so you could be opening a can of worms and jobbing someone who then should have made the playoffs or won the championship.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

 

[[scooter]]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

 

[renesauz]

For the life of me, I can't see why thi vote is going the way it is.

Look closely at your rules...

Do they state "rushing and receiving TD's are worth six points", or "TD's are worth six points"?

If the former...it was neither a rush nor a reception, so no score.

If the later....you may have to go back and rescore the season for kickoff returns, etc., but count it.

To be honest with you, fumble rcoveries for TD's have ALWAYS occurred in the NFL...if they aren't addressed in your rules, then your answer is easy....no score.

 

[renesauz]

OH....no web service worth a salt will score it unless it is specifically set up...after all, in your options it probably let you set up rushing and receiving point scores (IE: how many points they are worth)...THIS IS NEITHER A RUSH NOR A RECEPTION!

 

[[scooter]]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

But you're not following "your league's rules" -- you're following whatever the league management service tells you. You're letting another entity make the tough decision for you -- that's cowardly.It's cowardly because two identical leagues could have two different outcomes, simply because one league is hosted by Fanball and the other is hosted by MFL. It's not exactly brave to say "This would have counted as a TD if only we'd decided to go with Fanball."

 

[dutch]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

But you're not following "your league's rules" -- you're following whatever the league management service tells you. You're letting another entity make the tough decision for you -- that's cowardly.It's cowardly because two identical leagues could have two different outcomes, simply because one league is hosted by Fanball and the other is hosted by MFL. It's not exactly brave to say "This would have counted as a TD if only we'd decided to go with Fanball."

It's the same as if the commisioner of your fanball league checked the box to award ppr and the commish for your mfl league did not. Different leagues have different set-ups and it behooves you, the player, to read and know your leagues rules before agreeing to sign-up.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

But you're not following "your league's rules" -- you're following whatever the league management service tells you. You're letting another entity make the tough decision for you -- that's cowardly.It's cowardly because two identical leagues could have two different outcomes, simply because one league is hosted by Fanball and the other is hosted by MFL. It's not exactly brave to say "This would have counted as a TD if only we'd decided to go with Fanball."

It has nothing to do with being brave or cowardly...it has to do with the importance of having rules that cover such contingencies and an understanding that, in the case of a rule not being explicitly defined, there are defaults in place. I don't see how the determination of a scoring play in fantasy football or anything therein could be classified as brave and, ergo, cowardly.

 

[[scooter]]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

But you're not following "your league's rules" -- you're following whatever the league management service tells you. You're letting another entity make the tough decision for you -- that's cowardly.It's cowardly because two identical leagues could have two different outcomes, simply because one league is hosted by Fanball and the other is hosted by MFL. It's not exactly brave to say "This would have counted as a TD if only we'd decided to go with Fanball."

It's the same as if the commisioner of your fanball league checked the box to award ppr and the commish for your mfl league did not. Different leagues have different set-ups and it behooves you, the player, to read and know your leagues rules before agreeing to sign-up.

Apples to oranges. I'm talking about two leagues with the exact same rules. Yet their respective fates are determined solely by the default settings of a computer program.And yes, it is cowardly. No one can possibly have accounted for every single contingency in fantasy football. (In fact, I know of several scenarios that aren't even covered by MFL or Fanball.) To just turn a blind eye to it and say "We'll let Fanball decide our fate" is cowardly. Every league needs to step up and make a tough decision. You either allow it or you don't. But you don't let the computer make the choice for you. That's taking the lazy way out.

And what if your league rules only mention "passing, rushing, and receiving" TDs? But Fanball decides to score this as a rushing TD, when it clearly is not a rushing TD? Do you think that league should go with the Fanball ruling, or do you think the league should manually override it?

 

[dutch]

This is something that, unfortunately, should be addressed long before the season is underway. As others have said, there is no "right" answer here, except that it must be treated consistent with your league's historical precedent for these types of plays. Most leagues use a league hosting service now and, if you didn't explicitly set up scoring for this eventuality, I would say you are duty bound to go by the site's default interpretation of the situation. If that seems unfair to some of your league members, it should be put up for review for the 2008 season, but not retroactively.

That's the cowardly thing to do.

I'm not following you...following your league's rules and not retroactively changing them is cowardly? Flesh that out for me a bit.

But you're not following "your league's rules" -- you're following whatever the league management service tells you. You're letting another entity make the tough decision for you -- that's cowardly.It's cowardly because two identical leagues could have two different outcomes, simply because one league is hosted by Fanball and the other is hosted by MFL. It's not exactly brave to say "This would have counted as a TD if only we'd decided to go with Fanball."

It's the same as if the commisioner of your fanball league checked the box to award ppr and the commish for your mfl league did not. Different leagues have different set-ups and it behooves you, the player, to read and know your leagues rules before agreeing to sign-up.

Apples to oranges. I'm talking about two leagues with the exact same rules. Yet their respective fates are determined solely by the default settings of a computer program.And yes, it is cowardly. No one can possibly have accounted for every single contingency in fantasy football. (In fact, I know of several scenarios that aren't even covered by MFL or Fanball.) To just turn a blind eye to it and say "We'll let Fanball decide our fate" is cowardly. Every league needs to step up and make a tough decision. You either allow it or you don't. But you don't let the computer make the choice for you. That's taking the lazy way out.

And what if your league rules only mention "passing, rushing, and receiving" TDs? But Fanball decides to score this as a rushing TD, when it clearly is not a rushing TD? Do you think that league should go with the Fanball ruling, or do you think the league should manually override it?

If one league uses software with a default that does not award points for offensive fumble recovery td's and one league uses software that has a default to award points for offensive fumble recoveries then they are not leagues with exact same settings. I would find this out when I read thru the rules of the leagues and their scoring options. And this particular type of play is one that is common enough that almost all league mgmt services offer an option speciicaly for offensive recovery td's so I always look to see if it's credited or not. There is no way I would allow a commish to make an arbitrary ruling in-season in any event. If the issue is improtant enough it'll get teken care of in time for next season. Until then, gotta go by the league settings as they were set at the beginning of the season.

 

[[scooter]]

If one league uses software with a default that does not award points for offensive fumble recovery td's and one league uses software that has a default to award points for offensive fumble recoveries then they are not leagues with exact same settings.

First off, I said "exact same rules", not "exact same settings". Big difference.Second, different league management services will have different interpretations of what constitutes an "offensive fumble recovery" (i.e., whether a change of possession needs to happen). So even if we think that we've done our due diligence, we'd have no way of knowing how a play would be ruled until after the fact.

Thirdly, even if we did have the foresight to scrutinize the service's fine print to find the phrase "Offensive Fumble Recovery", what happens when Fanball goes and rules this as a Rushing TD? Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of reading the fine print?

A lot of people can't see the forest for the trees here. This play is no different than McNabb lateraling to Curtis at the 1-yard line.

 

[thayman]

Would you get any points if Curtis recoverd the fumble, ran it for 15 yards and then was tackled? If not then no it shouldn't count.

 

[dutch]

If one league uses software with a default that does not award points for offensive fumble recovery td's and one league uses software that has a default to award points for offensive fumble recoveries then they are not leagues with exact same settings.

First off, I said "exact same rules", not "exact same settings". Big difference.Second, different league management services will have different interpretations of what constitutes an "offensive fumble recovery" (i.e., whether a change of possession needs to happen). So even if we think that we've done our due diligence, we'd have no way of knowing how a play would be ruled until after the fact.

Thirdly, even if we did have the foresight to scrutinize the service's fine print to find the phrase "Offensive Fumble Recovery", what happens when Fanball goes and rules this as a Rushing TD? Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of reading the fine print?

A lot of people can't see the forest for the trees here. This play is no different than McNabb lateraling to Curtis at the 1-yard line.

I don't know whether fanball's ruling is consistent with their defaults but I personally think awarding a rushing td is a mistake as the td was not scored a rushing play by Curtis, it was scored a fumble recovery.As to the first two paragraphs, not knowing what the definitions are for the scoring plays is not the fault of the software but the fault of the user for not reading carefully enough or not asking pertinent questions at the beginning of the season. Again, it's the palyers reponsibility to know his leagues rules especially regarding the more familiar but irregular scoring plays.

All in all, if the rules and settings of your league don't specifically state that an offensive player is credited with points for a td scored by recovering a fumble then that player should recieve NO points.

 

[Topes]

I'm getting the sense that there are a lot of folks out there in leagues that do not have real League Rules , but rather simply wing it and go with their host's setup.

That's not a bad thing, IF the league agrees that teh host's ruling based upon the rules set up on the host will be taken as Gospel.

BUT is a league's 'rules' are really no clear document, but are rather derived from various interpretations of the the rules (as entered on host) and statements and past rulings... that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Topes]

Interestingly, I do believe that CBS Commissioner ruled differently on the Curtis play than it did on a similar play (but with an advance of the fubble) by Minnesota a couple years back.

 

[[scooter]]

As to the first two paragraphs, not knowing what the definitions are for the scoring plays is not the fault of the software but the fault of the user for not reading carefully enough or not asking pertinent questions at the beginning of the season. Again, it's the palyers reponsibility to know his leagues rules especially regarding the more familiar but irregular scoring plays.

Again, "knowing the league rules" is different from "knowing the league management service's default settings".Besides, sometimes it is the fault of the software -- such as the case of Fanball, which is incorrectly scoring it as a rushing TD. Are you saying that it's the player's responsibility to know in advance that Fanball would score this as a rushing TD?

We're putting far too much trust in computers here.

 

[Jimmy James]

In the league I judge all others by, we'd default to the scoring as calculated by our league management service. I don't think that's cowardly -- it's what we have done time and time again in the 9 years the league has been running.

I don't think that's an absolute, though. I think a league can expect and endow the commissioner with the power to depart from the provider if they want to get into all of that. They can provide for a league vote on it if they really want to (though that seems like a really dumb thing to do). It needs to be something thought about in general when a league is started, though. I don't think you need a rule covering this, but you need to have an idea what you want scoring to work like and how disputes should be handled. I really rather doubt most players and most leagues really think about oddball situations like this one or like the one last season where Wes Welker ended up kicking a FG.

 

[DropKick]

If he picked it up at the 1 and walked in it would be a 1 yd TD so I see no reason that it not be a TD just because it was in the end zone. No Saints players ever had control of it so there was no change of possession.

I don't think the distance is the issue. Does the league score "Offensive Fumble Recovery TDs". That is what it was.

 

[BigRed]

A commish IS NOT supposed to review every play, box score, and outcome and pick and chose which ones to rule on.

Right. He should just review the vague/ambiguous/controversial ones like this (assuming that applies to a given league). If there is any question/debate on it or how it should go, there should be a show of hands to decide. Course this rule itself (voting on debatable issues) should have already been part of the rules too.As for Curtis, I think almost all leagues have OR intend offensive TDs to count when scored by offensive players, so this should be treated as a 0 yd rush TD for scoring purposes. It is NOT a D/ST TD.Either way, to say "it's not already set up that way on the site so no credit for TD" is a major oversimplification at best for many leagues. scooter has this right - ie apply common sense, don't go blindly by how it's set up now necessarily as it might be set up at all in the first place.

All in all, if the rules and settings of your league don't specifically state that an offensive player is credited with points for a td scored by recovering a fumble then that player should recieve NO points.

Not necessarily, for reasons I just stated. That gets back to the "cowardly" thing ie ignoring the problem/controversy, unless of course you have it stated somewhere that the web site software default is the overriding factor in these kind of cases.