robert meachem

Shrink Attack · Post by **Shrink Attack** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Originally posted by Henry Muto:
NO DF should not get credit for the score. Meachem should. Meachem starts on offense ends on offesne this rule of you are now on defense is stupid. If a guy returns and INT for a TD then the defense should nto get credit for the TD since they are now on offense right ? Like I said that is stupid to say they are now on defense because then the DF's will never score because they are now on offense.

This is actually a great point. According the argument currently being used, when a defensive player intercepts a ball and runs it back for a TD, he becomes the "offense". So how can he score a defensive TD?

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:40 pm

Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
quote:Originally posted by Henry Muto:
NO DF should not get credit for the score. Meachem should. Meachem starts on offense ends on offesne this rule of you are now on defense is stupid. If a guy returns and INT for a TD then the defense should nto get credit for the TD since they are now on offense right ? Like I said that is stupid to say they are now on defense because then the DF's will never score because they are now on offense.

This is actually a great point. According the argument currently being used, when a defensive player intercepts a ball and runs it back for a TD, he becomes the "offense". So how can he score a defensive TD? [/QUOTE]THE ANSWER TO THIS IS THERE WAS A CHANGE OF POSSESION INVOLVED. WHETHER IT WAS A TURNOVER, PUNT RETURN, KICKOFF RETURN OR BLOCK FIELD GOAL.

WHEN SOMEONE SCORES ON A "CHANGE OF POSSESION" IT IS A DEFENSIVE/SPECIAL TEAM SCORE.

THAT'S THE ANSWER.

THAT'S WHY IF REGGUE BUSH HAD FUMBLED INTO THE END ZONE AND MEACHEM FALLS ON IT HE WOULD GET THE SIX POINTS DUE TO NO CHANGE OF POSSESION.

THE SAME WAY YOUR DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS DON'T GET CREDIT FOR A FAKE FIELD GOAL OR PUNT FOR A TD. NO CHANGE OF POSSESION IS INVOLED HENCE NO POINTS FOR THE DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS BEING USED.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:42 pm

The only thing I'm going to add to this thread....

WCOFF & FFPC rule the TD belongs to Robert Meachem....total POSTS debating ruling following the decision....
7 posts COMBINED.

NFFC rules the other way....total posts debating ruling....9 PAGES worth.

For someone who doesn't have a rooting interest either way on how this plays out, I just found it interesting that only one ruling created controversy. Greg, Tom, something tells me that if you are getting more pages of uproar for ruling one way than the total COMBINED posts the two other major contest got for ruling in the other direction, that tells me that maybe you should rethink your decision. Its obvious to me that the masses disagree with you.

Just trying to help here.

Glenn

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:13 pm

YOU REALLY CAN'T INCLUDE THE FFPC BECAUSE THEY GIVE "ACTION" SCORING TO PLAYERS.

JUST LIKE YOU GET POINTS FOR DESEAN JACKSONS AND EDDIE ROYAL'S PUNT RETURNS FOR TD'S

VERSUS HERE AND THE WCOFF YOU DON'T SO THERE IS A FOUNDATION FOR THEIR SCORING SYSTEM.

NOT QUITE SURE THE WCOFF'S LOGIC FOR GIVING MEACHEM THE SIX POINTS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS THE SAME LEAGUE THAT BROKE TIES WITH HEAD TO HEAD PLAY VERSUS TOTAL POINTS.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:59 pm

Simple, KOTRAX. The NFL rule states Meacham reverts back to an offensive player on the second change of possession. Greg/Tom and others like yourself in this thread choose to ignore the rule. You don't have a problem turning Meacham into a defensive player on the first change of possession, you just have a problem understanding the rule that changes him back to an offensive player on the second change of possession. It's a pretty simple read but it appears some people are still stuck on "Mary Had a Little Lamb".

Coltsfan · Post by **Coltsfan** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:09 am

Rick,

Iknow you're a great guy but this just needs to be let go. It's not in the NFFC rules to score it a TD for Meachem so they can't do it that way. For almost everyone else it seems so clear. The NFL also doesn't award points per reception, bonus points for holding teams under so many points, points for fumble recoveries, negative points for interceptions, etc... The NFL rules are not relative here - only the nffc rules. And some of the references you continue to make about the lack of "understanding" by so many others are somewhat insulting. It's not changing so let's just set it aside and enjoy the rest of the season. Best of luck to you.

Wayne

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:14 am

I agree with you Wayne, the NFFC is not going to change its stance and yes, this topic will go away. The discussion now isn't whether Meacham gets points but whether the Saints D get points as there is no rule for Meacham to get the points.

The NFL rules DO apply in regards to a player's designation on any given play and that is where the NFFC is currently flawed. Meacham designated as a defensive player can score points for the Saints D, but Meacham the offensive player can't and since that is what he was according to the NFL when he scored, and since it doesn't say in the NFFC rules that an offensive player, designated as a defensive player, recovering a fumble by a defensive player, and scoring a td as an offensive player, as designations are defined in NFL Rule 3, Section 35, counts as 6 points for the defense, giving the Saints D 6 points is flawed.

I'm sure this entire scenario will be corrected next year, but taking the points away from the Saints D is something that can and should be corrected now.

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:22 am

WHERE YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED RICK IS WHEN A CHANGE OF POSSESION IS INVOVLED THE DEFENSE AND ONLY THE DEFENSE GET THE POINTS.

NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.

I DON'T THINK THE RULES DON'T HAVE TO BE UPDATED, ANY CHANGE OF POSSESION FOR A TD THE DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS GET THE POINTS.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:35 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
The only thing I'm going to add to this thread....

WCOFF & FFPC rule the TD belongs to Robert Meachem....total POSTS debating ruling following the decision....
7 posts COMBINED.

NFFC rules the other way....total posts debating ruling....9 PAGES worth.

For someone who doesn't have a rooting interest either way on how this plays out, I just found it interesting that only one ruling created controversy. Greg, Tom, something tells me that if you are getting more pages of uproar for ruling one way than the total COMBINED posts the two other major contest got for ruling in the other direction, that tells me that maybe you should rethink your decision. Its obvious to me that the masses disagree with you.

Just trying to help here.

Glenn Yeah, but Rick and Gerard have 5 pages of posts themselves arguing for this rule change. That's a big part of the 9 pages.

Sure, we can look into the wording in our rules for 2010 and beyond that covers a fluke play like this and take the input of our NFFC owners to score this exactly the way the majority wants it. I agree with Ormond that many folks feel we have scored it correctly, but obviously some believe we should score it differently. Henry doesn't even want the two points to go to the defense, while others want double dipping. I'm not sure there's a consensus either way right now.

But we'll take your feedback and make sure it's spelled out in the rules so that there is no confusion going forward. I'm sure down the road this play will happen again and we should have our scoring for that play spelled out better than we have now. Not everyone will agree with it no matter if we keep it as is or change the scoring of that play, but we'll start a separate thread and ask for your feedback there. Thanks all.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:49 am

Just my silly imput...

Make a footnote in the rules..."must be on the field of play to get points awarded"

That way a "Team Defense" watching from the sidelines does not get credit for an offensive player (playing defensively) stripping a ball for a turnover or recovering a double fumble...I could care less how the NFL rules on it.

The second fumble recovery/strip simply would not count under a new fantasy rules setup.

If you wished to reward "action scoring" in the rare case of a TD...great! I'd guess folks would much rather push for "action scoring" in order to get the more common kickoff/punt return TD points, though.

These are just ideas for the future, as TEAMS drafted to play defense/special teams should not score fantasy points from the sidelines IMO.