Meachem TD scored as offense or defense play? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

The issue with the Saints D boils down to the fact that sites like CBS are taking the NFL's rule (that once the ball is turned over the offense becomes defense) literally and applying it to fantasy football, when that shouldn't be the case. More intelligent sites like MFL & RTS aren't doing this because it's idiotic. The spirit of drafting a team defense (comprimised of defensive players) is so that you get points when that defense gets sacks, turnovers, etc. The Saints D wasn't even on the field & shouldn't get credit for doing anything.

Then why am I getting credit for 3 fumble recoveries by the saints defense when 1 of the recoveries was obviously meachum's? Seems to me if your going to give credit for the fumble recovery, you should get credit for the resulting TD.

See post #129.

Just because that's their reasoning as you explained in post #129, that doesn't mean it makes sense. I can see arguments for both sides of whether or not this should be a NO D/ST TD or not. But, what am I completely against is the NO D/ST getting credit for the FR but not the TD. That defies logic. And yes, I read post #129. As you said, either no FR or TD for NO Defense or both. Not just one of those.That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

 

[bryhamm]

The issue with the Saints D boils down to the fact that sites like CBS are taking the NFL's rule (that once the ball is turned over the offense becomes defense) literally and applying it to fantasy football, when that shouldn't be the case. More intelligent sites like MFL & RTS aren't doing this because it's idiotic. The spirit of drafting a team defense (comprimised of defensive players) is so that you get points when that defense gets sacks, turnovers, etc. The Saints D wasn't even on the field & shouldn't get credit for doing anything.

Then why am I getting credit for 3 fumble recoveries by the saints defense when 1 of the recoveries was obviously meachum's? Seems to me if your going to give credit for the fumble recovery, you should get credit for the resulting TD.

See post #129.

Just because that's their reasoning as you explained in post #129, that doesn't mean it makes sense. I can see arguments for both sides of whether or not this should be a NO D/ST TD or not. But, what am I completely against is the NO D/ST getting credit for the FR but not the TD. That defies logic. And yes, I read post #129. As you said, either no FR or TD for NO Defense or both. Not just one of those.That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Which means that the intercepting team is no on offense, right? Which means, according to your own logic, there can NEVER be a defensive TD.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Why do you elevate one change of possession above another? Shouldn't they be treated equally? It seems arbitrary to recognize the first change of possession, but ignore the second one.

 

[gianmarco]

That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Why do you elevate one change of possession above another? Shouldn't they be treated equally? It seems arbitrary to recognize the first change of possession, but ignore the second one.

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a defensive scoring. I've read that in this thread multiple times and that is obviously nonsense. So I'm not ignoring the second one. The 1st change of possession now effectively turns the players on the field into the NO D/ST. The 2nd change of possession is now no different than any regular change of possession that results in a score and thus results in points scored for a D/ST.

 

[gianmarco]

The issue with the Saints D boils down to the fact that sites like CBS are taking the NFL's rule (that once the ball is turned over the offense becomes defense) literally and applying it to fantasy football, when that shouldn't be the case. More intelligent sites like MFL & RTS aren't doing this because it's idiotic. The spirit of drafting a team defense (comprimised of defensive players) is so that you get points when that defense gets sacks, turnovers, etc. The Saints D wasn't even on the field & shouldn't get credit for doing anything.

Then why am I getting credit for 3 fumble recoveries by the saints defense when 1 of the recoveries was obviously meachum's? Seems to me if your going to give credit for the fumble recovery, you should get credit for the resulting TD.

See post #129.

Just because that's their reasoning as you explained in post #129, that doesn't mean it makes sense. I can see arguments for both sides of whether or not this should be a NO D/ST TD or not. But, what am I completely against is the NO D/ST getting credit for the FR but not the TD. That defies logic. And yes, I read post #129. As you said, either no FR or TD for NO Defense or both. Not just one of those.That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Which means that the intercepting team is no on offense, right? Which means, according to your own logic, there can NEVER be a defensive TD.

No. Just because possession is changed doesn't mean that we can't score it as a D/ST for fantasy purposes. I've read this argument and it's silly. These 2 items aren't mutually exclusive. Even though "officially" there is a change of possession by NFL standards on any INT or fumble recovery, it doesn't mean that FF scoring has to reflect that (obviously). But that doesn't exclude the 1st change of possession in changing which team is on offense and which is on defense for subsequent turnovers/scoring. This is already displayed by awarding the NO D/ST with the fumble recovery on that play. How are they getting that with the defensive personnel on the sideline? Because after the 1st turnover, the offensive guys are effectively now the NO D/ST.

 

[zed2283]

[

My league has this clause ("we go by how CBS scores it"), but that doesn't change the fact that the way CBS is scoring it is stupid.

That's what we do, too. I know it's lazy, and I know this ruling is probably wrong, but everyone knows going in that's the way it is. Odd sidenote: the owner who has Meacham also has the NO D, so he would've gotten the 6 points in any case.

If the rules are set correctly he wouldn't have gotten anything. No 6 for NO D because it'ts stupid to award points to a fantasy defense that isn't even on the field, and no 6 points for Meachem because it wasn't a rushing, receiving, passing TD, unless your league has rules allowing points for an offensive recovery for a TD by WR/RB/QB/TE.

Again, you can't have an offensive TD (which is really what you guys are trying to call it) without awarding points to an offensive player. In other words, if the RB fumbles the ball into the endzone, and the WR recovers it, the WR doesn't get a TD? That doesn't make sense, and I don't see where there needs to be some "special" rule in place for it.The "team defense" isn't only the starting defensive players. It also includes special teams and, in the event of a turnover, offensive pesonnel.

 

[bryhamm]

That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Why do you elevate one change of possession above another? Shouldn't they be treated equally? It seems arbitrary to recognize the first change of possession, but ignore the second one.

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a defensive scoring. I've read that in this thread multiple times and that is obviously nonsense. So I'm not ignoring the second one. The 1st change of possession now effectively turns the players on the field into the NO D/ST. The 2nd change of possession is now no different than any regular change of possession that results in a score and thus results in points scored for a D/ST.

 

[gianmarco]

That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Why do you elevate one change of possession above another? Shouldn't they be treated equally? It seems arbitrary to recognize the first change of possession, but ignore the second one.

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a defensive scoring. I've read that in this thread multiple times and that is obviously nonsense. So I'm not ignoring the second one. The 1st change of possession now effectively turns the players on the field into the NO D/ST. The 2nd change of possession is now no different than any regular change of possession that results in a score and thus results in points scored for a D/ST.

I'm having similar thoughts about you.

 

[zed2283]

That being said, I personally think it should be scored for the NO D/ST. The personnel on the field don't matter. Once the ball is intercepted, possession is clearly changed. As someone pointed out above, if Washington had advanced the ball 30 yds and then fumbled and NO got it at that spot, would it be 1st and 10 or 3rd and 40? It would be 1st and 10 because possession had clearly changed to Washington and that now means the NO players on the field are the Defense (despite them being the Offense personnel).

Why do you elevate one change of possession above another? Shouldn't they be treated equally? It seems arbitrary to recognize the first change of possession, but ignore the second one.

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a defensive scoring. I've read that in this thread multiple times and that is obviously nonsense. So I'm not ignoring the second one. The 1st change of possession now effectively turns the players on the field into the NO D/ST. The 2nd change of possession is now no different than any regular change of possession that results in a score and thus results in points scored for a D/ST.

 

[Tau837]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

 

[bryhamm]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

did you just come full circle?

 

[gianmarco]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

For the same reason that the D/ST "points allowed" stats includes any points scored by a turnover by the offense. If I've got the New Orleans D/ST and Brees throws an INT that is returned for a TD, why do those points scored count against my D/ST in the "points allowed" stat? The NO defense wasn't on the field for that play, were they? So why should they be penalized for an event that happened when they weren't on the field? Because after that turnover, the offensive players are now the defense. I know there are some leagues that count those points as I just described above and some that don't. At MFL, you can actually choose whether or not it's total points scored or only points scored by the offense. But the default setting is simply total points scored. This default goes against the idea you stated above but it's the most common. Likewise, there's going to be differences in scoring for the actual incident from yesterday. I've already said I can actually see the argument for both sides. But, if I had to pick one and choose the scoring, I'm describing how "I" view it and would prefer it. In the end, it's just a matter of how your particular league and scoring system (league) scores it.

 

[Tau837]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

did you just come full circle?

No. See post #129. I explained why I think MFL made the ruling posted earlier, and said IMO only Meachem potentially deserves points, depending upon individual scoring system.

 

[cardsharky]

In my Yahoo league where we give Kickoff/Punt return touchdowns to the Offensive player.

In the Meachum case the New Orleans defense got credit for the turnover return.

 

[Tau837]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

For the same reason that the D/ST "points allowed" stats includes any points scored by a turnover by the offense. If I've got the New Orleans D/ST and Brees throws an INT that is returned for a TD, why do those points scored count against my D/ST in the "points allowed" stat? The NO defense wasn't on the field for that play, were they? So why should they be penalized for an event that happened when they weren't on the field? Because after that turnover, the offensive players are now the defense. I know there are some leagues that count those points as I just described above and some that don't. At MFL, you can actually choose whether or not it's total points scored or only points scored by the offense. But the default setting is simply total points scored. This default goes against the idea you stated above but it's the most common. Likewise, there's going to be differences in scoring for the actual incident from yesterday. I've already said I can actually see the argument for both sides. But, if I had to pick one and choose the scoring, I'm describing how "I" view it and would prefer it. In the end, it's just a matter of how your particular league and scoring system (league) scores it.

Your logic on this is surprising. You appear to think it is a poor solution to penalize the defense for points against when not scored by the opposing offense. And you appear to use that as justification for another poor solution. Two wrongs don't make a right... as you say, some leagues handle points against differently... correctly. So the best approach is to use appropriate solutions for both of these situations.

 

[bryhamm]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

did you just come full circle?

No. See post #129. I explained why I think MFL made the ruling posted earlier, and said IMO only Meachem potentially deserves points, depending upon individual scoring system.

 

[Dbbr]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

I think this is very confusing to say a players (or teams) roster position is adjusted based on the game situation. We fill our rosters at draft or auction time based on their roster position, I can't fill a WR slot with a RB because he lines up sometimes in the slot, right?

Meachem scored this TD, Meachem should get the points. He is no more owned by the owner of the New Orleans defense as I would be the owner of Ronnie Brown, or Josh Cribbs if I have the Miami or Cleveland QB's as my QB team. And their yardage is not scored differently if the league plays with individual QB just because on that one play they lined up in the QB position.

Unfortunately in my league I can't rule on this, since I am the Commish and I own Meachem. But I will fix this for next year, and IF we are still using Sportsline next year, the comment in our rule book that states we will defer to CBS scoring will be eliminated. Obviously the guys making these rulings are drinking their bath water.

 

[gianmarco]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

Interesting that you would cite "the basic premise of FF" here. IMO a basic premise for non-IDP leagues is that drafting a D or D/ST is drafting a group of defensive or defensive & special teams players to avoid the need to draft individuals as is done for offense. That group does not include Meachem, so why should a fantasy D or D/ST get any points for what he did?

For the same reason that the D/ST "points allowed" stats includes any points scored by a turnover by the offense. If I've got the New Orleans D/ST and Brees throws an INT that is returned for a TD, why do those points scored count against my D/ST in the "points allowed" stat? The NO defense wasn't on the field for that play, were they? So why should they be penalized for an event that happened when they weren't on the field? Because after that turnover, the offensive players are now the defense. I know there are some leagues that count those points as I just described above and some that don't. At MFL, you can actually choose whether or not it's total points scored or only points scored by the offense. But the default setting is simply total points scored. This default goes against the idea you stated above but it's the most common. Likewise, there's going to be differences in scoring for the actual incident from yesterday. I've already said I can actually see the argument for both sides. But, if I had to pick one and choose the scoring, I'm describing how "I" view it and would prefer it. In the end, it's just a matter of how your particular league and scoring system (league) scores it.

Your logic on this is surprising. You appear to think it is a poor solution to penalize the defense for points against when not scored by the opposing offense. And you appear to use that as justification for another poor solution. Two wrongs don't make a right... as you say, some leagues handle points against differently... correctly. So the best approach is to use appropriate solutions for both of these situations.

Actually, I don't think it's a poor solution. In terms of the "points allowed", I don't think there's a "good" solution or a "bad" solution. All of the options are equally viable and just a matter of what your league prefers. Just like ppr isn't more "right" than non-ppr. It's simply a matter of preference.What I was explaining with that example is that when you count the total points scored against a team as the "points allowed" by that FF D/ST (which happens to be the default and most common scoring), then you are essentially saying that once the ball is turned over, the offense that was on the field is now the D/ST and allowed those points to be scored despite the fact that the defensive personnel is on the sideline. I don't find that thinking wrong at all. I think it's a legitimate way to look at it. However, similarly, with the play that happened yesterday, you can assign the offensive players on the field the title of D/ST after the 1st change of possession and the subsequent play results in a score for that entity. You happen to disagree with that thinking and that's fine. I don't think your view is wrong. Simply different. The difference is that you (and others in this thread) actually find the contrarian viewpoint incorrect and there isn't a "correct" answer here. Just a matter of particular scoring system and preference. The fact that there are lots of people on both sides of this should demonstrate that pretty clearly I'd think. It's not as if one half of the people in this argument are "smarter" than the other side.

 

[renesauz]

Never understood the drama on these types of plays. It's one of those things that should be taken care of in your rules.

It's an offensive TD. If you rules don't allow for offensive scores by something other then a reception or a rush...then there's no points to award...BUT THEY SHOULD ALLOW for it.

Well written rules would have this count as a TD for the player (Meachem), but not necesarily with any yardage.

 

[gianmarco]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.You didn't start Ronnie Brown to get his passing TDs. But, if he lines up at QB and gets one, then he gets credited.Similarly, I didn't start the NO D/ST to get points from their offensive players. But if those guys become the D/ST as a result of a fluky play and score on it, then similarly they should get credited.

 

[CalBear]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.

I play in a league which uses team QBs (Anarchy Invitational). The Miami TMQB does not get credit for plays in which Brown or Williams lines up in the Wildcat.

 

[gianmarco]

Well written rules would have this count as a TD for the player (Meachem), but not necesarily with any yardage.

Why can't you have "well written" rules that allow this TD to count as a D/ST TD? As long as it's written and clear in your scoring rules and everyone knows ahead of time, then it really doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on. It's not wrong to have this scored as a Meachem TD if it's in your rules.It's not wrong to have this scored as a NO D/ST TD if it's in your rules.It's not wrong to not have it scored at all if it's in your rules.If it's not described in your rules, then you just go with the scoring system in place on your league site. If it's on MFL, you go by that scoring. If you're on Sportsline, you go by that scoring. And, IMO, if you don't like the way it's done on your particular site, then just make sure you adopt a rule from here on out that describes how YOU would prefer to have it scored. There is no "right" or "wrong" for that.

 

[gianmarco]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.

I play in a league which uses team QBs (Anarchy Invitational). The Miami TMQB does not get credit for plays in which Brown or Williams lines up in the Wildcat.

Surely you realize that scoring system is easily in the minority. The VAST majority of scoring systems allow RB's or WR's to get credit for passing TDs.

 

[TommyGilmore]

For the same reason that the D/ST "points allowed" stats includes any points scored by a turnover by the offense. If I've got the New Orleans D/ST and Brees throws an INT that is returned for a TD, why do those points scored count against my D/ST in the "points allowed" stat?

Probably because you play in a crappy league that's too lazy to remove those TDs from the points allowed. None of my leagues count those TDs against the defense.

 

[renesauz]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.You didn't start Ronnie Brown to get his passing TDs. But, if he lines up at QB and gets one, then he gets credited.Similarly, I didn't start the NO D/ST to get points from their offensive players. But if those guys become the D/ST as a result of a fluky play and score on it, then similarly they should get credited.

That's terrible logic. Offensive players are on the field together all the time, and are historically interchangeable pieces. RB's catch balls, TE's occassionaly rush with the ball. Every league allows for this by scoring players on (virtually) the same rules. The offense and defense are not interchanegable. Ray Lewis isn't typically trotted out to play TE. McNabb doesn't line up EVER at MLB. Many leagues scoring by total point don't differentiate betwwen offense/defense because it's inconveniant. Some interception returns are taken to the one yard line. How can you fairly charge those points against the defense? The points the defense gives up are DIRECTLY related to what the teams offense does. That's an understood dynamic that can not reasonably be taken out of fantasy rules, therefore it's reasonable to say simply "points allowed includes ALL points opposing team scores." Most of us don't whine about it because it's known ahead of time, and we understand that conveniance AND the reasonability.This scenario is somewhat unique (rare) and is completely dissimilar.

 

[Tau837]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.

I play in a league which uses team QBs (Anarchy Invitational). The Miami TMQB does not get credit for plays in which Brown or Williams lines up in the Wildcat.

The question is whether or not a player is scored individually or as a group. If Ronnie Brown throws a TD, you get the points because he is an individual on your roster. If you play team QBs, you don't get the points, because it is position-specific. Scoring a "team component" is not based on game situation, it is based on position. Scoring an individual player is based upon league scoring rules (e.g., if RB is set up to get points for throwing a TD).Similarly, in this case, if you play team Defense, you should get the points for the players that are part of the defense based upon position, not based on game situation.

 

[Tau837]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.

I play in a league which uses team QBs (Anarchy Invitational). The Miami TMQB does not get credit for plays in which Brown or Williams lines up in the Wildcat.

Surely you realize that scoring system is easily in the minority. The VAST majority of scoring systems allow RB's or WR's to get credit for passing TDs.

Right. Because the vast majority treat them as individual players and set up scoring for the RB and WR positions to be credited for throwing TD passes. The same logic suggests that Meachem should be credited for a tackle, forced fumble, fumble recovery, and/or TD, if the league rules are set up to score such plays for individuals. It does not at all suggest that the team defense should get credit for those things.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Because the basic premise for FF scoring is that if a change of possession occurs typically (fumble recovery or INT) and that results directly in a TD, then the D/ST is credited with the TD.

No, the basic premise for FF is that you draft a particular player (or D/ST) and you give them points for things they accomplish on the field.The actual New Orleans Defense/Special Teams did nothing on this play. They don't deserve the points. If you give them the points then you are going against everything that fantasy football stands for.

Furthermore, the NFL considers this TD to be an offensive touchdown. Why would you go against the NFL?

 

[gianmarco]

Furthermore, the NFL considers this TD to be an offensive touchdown.

Link for this?ETA--Official NFL Gamebook

Go to page 5. The page is titled "Final Defensive Statistics"

Meachem is listed as a defensive player and credited with a tackle, forced fumble, and fumble recovery. Interesting since he isn't a defensive player.

 

[teeman11]

This one is driving me crazy, Saints Def in one league and Meachem in another which is IDP.

Two thing I want to thorw out there:

One, this whole change of possession and the defense switching to offense and vice versa. People are saying if you look at it this way then the defense would never get a TD because once they get the ball you consider them on offense. I look at it like this: If you got the ball from the other team(fumble or Int) then it's a defensive score. Yea, you swtich to offense because you are trying to score now and they switch to defense because they are trying to stop you from scoring, however because you took the ball from them then it counts as a defensive score. The key is who the scoring player got the ball from.

thrown to: rec TD

handle off to: Rush TD

fumble by a teammate: fumble recovery TD

taken from the other team: defensive TD

Two, With all that said, it all comes down to your rules. In my league we don't count points against the defense if it was a score on a turnover. Meaning, Team A's offense is on the field and they turn it over for a touchdown. Those 6 points do not count against Team A's defense points allowed. In this case I would argue the Meachem's touchdown wouldn't count for the defensive unit because they weren't on the field.

So,

A. In a league with team DEF that counts everything, meaning things that happen when the defense is not on the field like points allowed, then Meachems TD is a fumble recovery and TD score for the Defense.

B. In a league with team DEF that distinguishes plays by whether the Defense is on the file or not then Meachems TD is an offense TD

C. In a league with IDP's then Meachems TD counts as if he was a defenseive player.

 

[gianmarco]

Furthermore, the NFL considers this TD to be an offensive touchdown.

Link for this?ETA--Official NFL Gamebook

Go to page 5. The page is titled "Final Defensive Statistics"

Meachem is listed as a defensive player and credited with a tackle, forced fumble, and fumble recovery. Interesting since he isn't a defensive player.

I noticed at the very bottom of the playbook that they do indeed have it credited as an Offensive TD. That being the case, I'd be much less inclined to scored this as a D/ST TD and lean toward no scoring. But, as I said far above, I also don't think they should get credit for the fumble recovery which they did in MFL. I also still think it just matters how your actual scoring system is setup and don't think either option is wrong.I actually own the NO D/ST in MANY leagues and I didn't even consider bringing this up to change because it's simply how it's scored at MFL nor am I really upset that I didn't get the points. It just is that way and I definitely see the reasoning behind it.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Furthermore, the NFL considers this TD to be an offensive touchdown.

Link for this?

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/5...AS_Gamebook.pdfAt the very bottom:

Touchdown Scoring Information			Offense		Defense		Special Teams	New Orleans Saints						3		0		0Washington Redskins						3		0		0

 

[Sack-Religious]

As of now, in the Flea Flicker league I commish, the NO D is credited with 1 INT.

Robert Meachem is credited with 34.2 points. 8 receptions, 142 yards and 2 TD's.

For my fellow commishes, would implementing the following rule to settle these issues be too simplistic?

In order for a Team Defence to be awarded points, that team's defensive unit must be on the field of play as the play commences.

What say you?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Meachem is listed as a defensive player and credited with a tackle, forced fumble, and fumble recovery. Interesting since he isn't a defensive player.

I think that, technically, Meachem isn't actually listed as a "defensive player". He's given credit under Defensive Statistics, but only in the "Misc" section. He's not listed under Regular Defensive Plays.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Furthermore, the NFL considers this TD to be an offensive touchdown.

Link for this?ETA--Official NFL Gamebook

Go to page 5. The page is titled "Final Defensive Statistics"

Meachem is listed as a defensive player and credited with a tackle, forced fumble, and fumble recovery. Interesting since he isn't a defensive player.

Yes that's the "Final Defensive Statistics" page, but if you look at where Meachem's stats are on that page, they're in the "Misc" section, which doesn't fall under the "Regular Defensive Plays" or the "Special Teams" plays. The "Misc" category is simply that, miscellaneous. A play that is neither offence, defence nor special teams.If MFL is crediting NO with a Fumble Recovery, perhaps it's from this play. Not the Meachem play.

From the 2nd quarter.

4-1-NO 30 (1:43) 6-T.Morstead punts 27 yards to WAS 43, Center-57-J.Kyle. 25-K.Barnes MUFFS catch, touched at WAS 43, RECOVERED by NO-28-U.Young at WAS 41. 28-U.Young to WAS 41 for no gain (82-A.Randle El).

 

[FDC]

I understand that many leagues will score this differently based on rules and how settings were worded. I do not wish to inquire about each situation.

However, what should be the correct way to score this situation in future?

IMO there should be no points at all for Meachem or Team Def.

Reasoning: Because the ball was intercepted and there was a change of possession Meachem becomes a defender. Thus, he should not get points for an "Offensive Fumble Recovery for TD." Because he is not a true "defender" you do not get points for "Defensive Fumble Recovery for TD." Because your defense was not on the field NO defense does not get points for "Defensive Fumble Recovery for TD."

Justification: Its not like you started Meachem because of your knowledge of his ability to strip the football. Unpredictable stats/scoring should be left completely out of fantasy football.

Slant: It seems that the owners that are defending points being allowed for this are benefitting from the scoring in some way. No reasonable person would attempt to justify the scoring in this situation.

JMHO

 

[CalBear]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.

I play in a league which uses team QBs (Anarchy Invitational). The Miami TMQB does not get credit for plays in which Brown or Williams lines up in the Wildcat.

Surely you realize that scoring system is easily in the minority. The VAST majority of scoring systems allow RB's or WR's to get credit for passing TDs.

The RB does get credit for the passing TD. The "QB team" does not get credit for it, because the QB team doesn't touch the ball on the play. Same with the (New Orleans) defense not touching the ball on this play.

 

[Dbbr]

For those of you who believe that the New Orleans defense deserves these points because "at the time of turnover, the offense becomes the defense".....do you also think that when a Ronnie Brown or Josh Cribbs lines up in the QB position they should be scored as a QB?

Ahh, but they ARE scored as a QB. They get points for a passing TD even though they aren't listed as a QB on your roster. This is just another example of why you allow an "entity" to get the score even if it doesn't match the personnel.You didn't start Ronnie Brown to get his passing TDs. But, if he lines up at QB and gets one, then he gets credited.Similarly, I didn't start the NO D/ST to get points from their offensive players. But if those guys become the D/ST as a result of a fluky play and score on it, then similarly they should get credited.

Gianmarco - what I was referring to was more the clip level for the scoring. Yes I agree that they would get the TD points, but if they run from the QB position, they still are scored under RB rules (IE: .1 point for every 1 yard). We don't then put them to .05 pt for 1 yd, as we have our QB scoring set. Simply stated: I believe a player is drafted/bought and is scored at his roster position. I don't believe at the point of the turnover suddenly the defensive team owner is now "in the play" so to speak, changing roster positions to match the game scenario. But yes - they do get points for TD's scored, and even yardage produced.Sportsline blew this one, I think the other services have a better grip on this.

 

[TommyGilmore]

However, what should be the correct way to score this situation in future?

IMO there should be no points at all for Meachem or Team Def.

Reasoning: Because the ball was intercepted and there was a change of possession Meachem becomes a defender. Thus, he should not get points for an "Offensive Fumble Recovery for TD." Because he is not a true "defender" you do not get points for "Defensive Fumble Recovery for TD." Because your defense was not on the field NO defense does not get points for "Defensive Fumble Recovery for TD."

I think you're hung up on the phrase "Offensive Fumble Recovery", when it's really just a made up phrase by Myfantasyleague (and other websites). If MFL had described it as a "Team A Fumble Recovery", we might not be having this debate.That said, I think the way to score it in the future is to simply treat it as a separate scoring method -- not a rush, not a pass, but a Fumble Recovery TD. Each league should have the option of including these TDs when scored by offensive players. (Further, each league should have the option of deciding whether a standard offensive fumble recovery TD -- when a player recovers his teammate's fumble -- should be included.)

Justification: Its not like you started Meachem because of your knowledge of his ability to strip the football. Unpredictable stats/scoring should be left completely out of fantasy football.

Would you say the same if Meachem had recovered his own teammate's fumble and scored? Would you say the same if Meachem had scored on a lateral? IMO, these types of unpredictable plays are EXACTLY what makes fantasy football so much fun.

 

[Mr.Pack]

He became a defender the moment the INT occurred. He could have gotten a tackle, but stripped the ball instead. Still a defensive play.

Agree with this 100%.

 

[Mr.Pack]

It's not that difficult. Once the ball changes possession, one team becomes the Def, the other becomes the Off.

It really is that simple.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

In my mind, there are two teams that step onto the field at the beginning of the play, and that's how it stays throughout the play (no matter what happens).

 

[Cawbird]

Can't you add this logic too:

It was a New Orleans offensive play. Wash intercepted the pass, thus 1 point for the Wash defense. The ball was then stripped and returned for a TD. Technically, the play did not end until Meacham scored the TD, therefore.....shouldn't it sill be an offensive play for New Orleans and their defense doesn't even come into play? The whistle never blew until the TD was scored, so it was only 1 play and it was NO offense on that play.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

It's not that difficult. Once the ball changes possession, one team becomes the Def, the other becomes the Off.It really is that simple.

So, if Darrelle Revis intercepts a ball and runs it back for a TD it should be considered an offensive TD?

 

[Mr.Pack]

For people who want to make their own set of rules and give Meachem a TD as an offensive player, a simple question:How did Meachem get the TD? Pass reception? Run?No - it was a fumble by the opposing player. This is cut and dry - not an offensive TD.

Okay then, how would you score this scenario:1. Brees throws pass to Colston.2. Colston fumbles.3. Meachem recovers fumble and returns it for touchdown.

Different situation as the ball never changed possession. This would be an Offensive Fumble Recovery for a TD. And the only way any points would be given, is if it was written in your league rules.

 

[home dog]

One thing I'm struggling with today is my league has never given individual players TDs on defense. Clearly Meachem deserves a TD on the play. So how can Saints D get one too? Who does the TD belong to?

 

[TommyGilmore]

It's not that difficult. Once the ball changes possession, one team becomes the Def, the other becomes the Off.

It really is that simple.

I agree, Mr. Pack.And once the ball changes possession a second time, then the original team becomes the offense again. That's how the NFL rules it.

It really is that simple.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I may be backtracking here. I am starting to think that we wrote into our rules, that an offensive player stays an offensive player until the play is over, and vice versa. This actually makes sense to me. Other wise you could have multiple changes of possession on any one play. this rule simplifies it.

I know on a fake FG, it's an offensive play until the ball is kicked, then it becomes a ST play. Same with a fake punt.

 

[TommyGilmore]

He became a defender the moment the INT occurred. He could have gotten a tackle, but stripped the ball instead. Still a defensive play.

Agree with this 100%.

Hint: not all "defensive plays" are made by the defense.I think that's one of the things that's throwing people off. It's true that Meachem made a defensive play. But he did not make that play while part of the regular defense. The NFL makes a clear distinction between defensive plays that are made while on "Regular Defense", "Special Teams", or "Misc". Meachem's forced fumble and fumble recovery will be listed under "Misc".And Meachem's TD will be listed under "Offense". The NFL has made it clear that this TD was not scored by the defense.

 

[shadyridr]

It's not that difficult. Once the ball changes possession, one team becomes the Def, the other becomes the Off.It really is that simple.

1. So if possession changes twice than its an offensive TD2. Do you play with defensive teams? If a defense gets an INT return does your TEAM DEF get credit for the score?