robert meachem

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:09 am

Originally posted by FF Addict:
I don't want to cause additional problems here, but it looks like this was addressed by the NFFC in 2004 in the post below which discusses the McCardell play (same situation from 2003). I pasted this in from the Ask The NFFC A Question forum after doing a McCardell search.

I played in the WCOFF in 2003 and remember the controversy. I personally don't care which way it is scored as long as we are consistent and follow stated rules (if any). This may be the first play like this since McCardell.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diesel:
McCardell's touchdown not only exposed a minor loophole, but that single TD affected Head to Head games' results. The NFL stated that there can only be an established change of hands from the Offense to Defense(Or Defense to Offense) ONCE.
So under NFL rules, once M. Doss picked the pass off, he became an OFFENSIVE player. Which to me, sounds ridiculous, but this made McCardell a DEFENSIVE player at the same time. With this being said, Doss' fumble which ended in McCardell's TD was then awarded to the Defense instead of the Wideout.

That's how the NFL/ commissioner.com ruled it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, I remember that quite well. And while that's how the NFL rules it, personally I think that's incredibly silly since McCardell is clearly not a defensive player and Doss was not an offensive player. Thus we have made our rules to state that in such an event the touchdown points would not be awarded to the Bucs' defense, but rather to the offensive player in question -- McCardell.

It may conflict with the NFL's official rule, but that's how we're going to rule it and since it's being stated in advance hopefully that will prevent any controversy should such a play happen again. Of course, the best-case scenario is nothing like that ever happens again.

--------------------
Tom Kessenich
Managing Editor, Fanball.com
Event Director, National Fantasy Football Championship I hate to say this, but in my opinion this post is the only one that really matters here.

A precedent has been set, therefore it should be followed.

Glenn

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:21 am

Of course it should. And I would expect that Tom and Greg WILL follow the precedent and perhaps review for next year (as Tom stated already in this thread).

This horse is dead folks.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:23 am

Now, I'm confused ... Tom stated a few posts ago that Meachem does not get the TD because that's how it was ruled in the McCardell situation, but reading above it sounds like his memory was wrong - that the NFFC did in fact award the TD to McCardell.

Am I reading this wrong ... can we get a final answer from Greg and Tom?

[ December 07, 2009, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 am

Originally posted by edcnp:

"6 points for a recovered offensive fumble for a touchdown (RB, QB, WR, TE)"
If you are assuming Meachem is still an offensive player (WR) ... than he clearly a recovered Defensive players fumble for a touchdown.

It seems like the rules would say "recovered fumble for a touchdown" if it meant any players fumble. The explicit use of "offensive fumble" makes this crystal clear that defensive fumbles were NOT to be included in individual scoring.

Big Mike

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:26 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I'd like to see a "Meachem rule" in the official rules next season, so there is no dispute. Clearer spelled out rules are always better.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:28 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Now, I'm confused ... Tom stated a few posts ago that Meachem does not get the TD because that's how it was ruled in the McCardell situation, but reading above it sounds like his memory was wrong - that the NFFC did in fact award the TD to McCardell.

Am I reading this wrong ... can we get a final answer from Greg and Tom? The NFFC did not exist yet.

The quoted post was just Tom talking on the message board back them about how he thought it should be handled.

Written rules and 4 or 5 year old MB banter are not to be blended.

[ December 07, 2009, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

chriseibl · Post by **chriseibl** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:34 am

Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
quote:Originally posted by edcnp:

"6 points for a recovered offensive fumble for a touchdown (RB, QB, WR, TE)"
If you are assuming Meachem is still an offensive player (WR) ... than he clearly a recovered Defensive players fumble for a touchdown.

It seems like the rules would say "recovered fumble for a touchdown" if it meant any players fumble. The explicit use of "offensive fumble" makes this crystal clear that defensive fumbles were NOT to be included in individual scoring.

Big Mike [/QUOTE]I agree 100% with this legal interpretation.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:38 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
quote:Originally posted by edcnp:
Looks like rules say it counts towards Meachem

RUSHING:
.10 points for every yard rushing (works out to 1 point every 10 yards).
6 points for every rushing TD
2 points for every 2-Point conversion
minus 1 point for every lost fumble
6 points for a recovered offensive fumble for a touchdown (RB, QB, WR, TE) 6 points for a recovered offensive fumble for a touchdown (RB, QB, WR, TE) Washington took possesion making the New Orleans offense the defense. The New Orleans defense scored the TD.

If an offensive player fumbled, Meachem would be credited with the TD. [/QUOTE]I'm sorry I'm late to this thread, but I flew to St. Louis this morning for meetings with the Fanball.com team. This is definitely an odd, odd play, but STATS has scored this according to our rules and the play stands as is.

Our rules do not allow for any individual player to receive points for a special teams play or a defensive play. Washington's defense rightfully scored two points on the interception and then the Saints got two points for the ensuing fumble recovery because they were now on defense, defending their goal. If the play ended there, I don't think anyone would disagree that that's the way that play should be scored, right? Meacham wouldn't get two points for recovering that fumble, the Saints' defense would. Right?

The fact that Meacham took the fumble recovery and went for a touchdown is what has everyone up in arms. But there is nothing in our rules that allows him to get points for this defensive touchdown. The Saints got two points for the fumble recovery and thus they have to get six points for the ensuing touchdown. Our rules state that an individual player gets points for an OFFENSIVE fumble recovery for a touchdown. We just scored it as a defensive fumble recovery so the individual player can't then get the defensive TD.

I understand the frustration, but you must be true to your rules. Maybe other contests have it spelled out differently than us. Maybe we need to define this part even more in our rules because it's bound to happen again. But I don't see anything in our rules that allows Meacham to get points for this touchdown; the Saints D does.

I hope this makes sense. STATS scored it right initially and it's still right after reading everything in our rules. Good luck all tonight.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:44 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Now, I'm confused ... Tom stated a few posts ago that Meachem does not get the TD because that's how it was ruled in the McCardell situation, but reading above it sounds like his memory was wrong - that the NFFC did in fact award the TD to McCardell.

Am I reading this wrong ... can we get a final answer from Greg and Tom? The NFFC was started in 2004. Did that McCardell play happen in 2003 as folks stated? Or 2004? Help me out KJ, I'm old and can't remember that far back. But if needed, I can find out.

Jim Wiseheart · Post by **Jim Wiseheart** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

Greg, the McCardell play was in week 5 of 2003.

[ December 07, 2009, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: FF Addict ]