Special Teams Discussion

[RedRyder]

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
I understand that. But in this instance at the present time we're viewing it the same way the NFL does - as an offensive play. Like the NFL, we do not consider that to be a special teams score. Again, if we need to clarify the wording let us know how we can do that and we'll make any revision that is necessary. Wow, that sounds like end of discussion! I thought this was suppose to be a "discussion" thread. At least that is what the Topic says.

So, this thread has been up less than a day and already it's no longer a discussion, it's a Clarify the wording thread. Which would be fine if the thread was up longer and allowed for others to voice their thoughts (if there are others and there were others in two other threads that had the same concerns as I).

Disappointing. I was actually encouraged when Greg jumped in the Diamond League thread and it sounded as if the NFFC was actually open to listening.

[Tom Kessenich]

Originally posted by RedRyder:
quote:Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
I understand that. But in this instance at the present time we're viewing it the same way the NFL does - as an offensive play. Like the NFL, we do not consider that to be a special teams score. Again, if we need to clarify the wording let us know how we can do that and we'll make any revision that is necessary. Wow, that sounds like end of discussion! I thought this was suppose to be a "discussion" thread. At least that is what the Topic says.[/QUOTE]Jules, I'm not shutting off the discussion. But you guys are asking why we're scoring this the way we do and I've provided the answer. We definitely welcome further discussion and I apologize if I gave you the impression we did not.

[BillyWaz]

Originally posted by GK:
quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:
quote:Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
Jules, I agree we don't follow the NFL rules in every instance and our game is different. But you're asking why we score this particular play the way we do and I've replied with the reason why. I can appreciate if you and others believe this is a special teams play. Honest I do. But in our event at the present time we view it the same way the NFL does - as an offensive play.

And if you or others contend that we shouldn't because no one rosters a punter I would counter by saying few people roster a fullback and yet they score even more frequently. And no one rosters an offensive lineman who may score on a tackle eligible play. The fact of the matter is there will be instances of non-rostered players scoring points that are not assigned in the NFFC (or any fantasy league) far more frequently than the type of play we're talking about here. We are talking about SPECIAL TEAMS, a UNIT in football and a SCORING UNIT in the this contest. In the NFFC we don't have scoring for the OFFENSIVE UNIT only, we have it for the skill players. Hence if a a tackle reports as eligible, great. I have no problem that he catches a TD, he is part of the offensive unit that is on the field and we don't have scoring for that. And plenty of folks rostered Leonard Weaver last year (I know I did) and reaped the reward when he found the end zone.

If Special Teams is on the field and they score I think NFFC teams rostering that DST should be rewarded. [/QUOTE]...for what it's worth, these are my sentiments precisely...GK [/QUOTE]I hear what you guys are saying, and I would be fine with that, but how does the COMPUTER PROGRAM differentiate whether the special teams unit is on the field? All it is going to see is a TD scored by "so and so running, or so and so passing to so and so".

As I stated, these plays where the team is in FG or punt formation happen MAYBE twice a year, and although I fully realize it can impact a fantasy game, it shouldn't change how we draft.

So basically, just set the rule to "whatever" for me, and I will be good with it. It just needs to be VERY clear.

[GOD Hates You]

It does not matter what players are on the field, the FG unit or punting unit, or any other unit, until that ball is actually kicked, it is NOT a special teams play.

[mws123]

Tom

I wanted to follow up on Jules's concerns regarding rule changes. The tone does come across
as if these suggestions are not up for discusion. We don't want to waste our time, or your's, if you have no intention of making change.
I was hoping after all of the posting last year concerning the Miles Austin score, we could actually have some sort of discussion regarding the tickler issues like double turnovers, kick return and punt return scores, double dipping. Defensive scoring adjustments to help offset the argument of (that score shouldn't count against my defense....On that issue take away the shutout score and make the highest level 0-7 pts allowed with an adjusted scoring award. Maybe the owners can tolerate that. Why not contact your customer base by email and see what the majority would like to see ? Even if you guys don't agree, it would give you a true reading on what the majority of owners prefer. I would like to think that we do have a voice in this contest. Can you put together a questionnaire asking for input on a few of these sensitive issues as stated above ? I believe you would have a much wider participation from owners if contacted by email.

Thanks for listening.

Mark



Mark

[Tom Kessenich]

Mark, I'll apologize again if I came across as saying the discussion as over. That was not my intention. I was simply providing an explanation as to why we have had the rule in place previously and why it remains in place this year.

Please continue the discussion. I'm sorry if anyone thought my response meant we didn't want it to continue. That was never my intention.

[TamuScarecrow]

It does not matter what players are on the field, the FG unit or punting unit, or any other unit, until that ball is actually kicked, it is NOT a special teams play.But it is a special teams play IF the NFFC decides it is a special teams play. How many pages of BS did I have to endure last year in my explanantion of the rule concerning the "Meacham" play where I was told NFL rules don't apply, only the NFFC rules apply. That's all I heard from my good friend, UYT.

No, Tom, don't even think about getting the Meacham rule discussion started again because you didn't sound good then and you won't sound good now. Let's stay on point here. If the NFFC says a faked fg or punt resulting in points is NOT a special teams score, so be it. If the NFFC says a faked fg or punt resulting in points IS a special teams score regardless of NFL rules, so be it. As long as the rule is spelled out, no problem.

[RedRyder]

Originally posted by Oregon Tarheel:
Tom

I wanted to follow up on Jules's concerns regarding rule changes. The tone does come across
as if these suggestions are not up for discusion. We don't want to waste our time, or your's, if you have no intention of making change.
I was hoping after all of the posting last year concerning the Miles Austin score, we could actually have some sort of discussion regarding the tickler issues like double turnovers, kick return and punt return scores, double dipping. Defensive scoring adjustments to help offset the argument of (that score shouldn't count against my defense....On that issue take away the shutout score and make the highest level 0-7 pts allowed with an adjusted scoring award. Maybe the owners can tolerate that. Why not contact your customer base by email and see what the majority would like to see ? Even if you guys don't agree, it would give you a true reading on what the majority of owners prefer. I would like to think that we do have a voice in this contest. Can you put together a questionnaire asking for input on a few of these sensitive issues as stated above ? I believe you would have a much wider participation from owners if contacted by email.

Thanks for listening.

Mark

Mark I think a survey or questionnaire is a great idea and a good tool for contest owners. They are not hard to set up.

There was a post by someone with very good questions regarding DST scoring if the rule stays as written. I can't find that now, it was on Page 1 of this thread. I agree with Rick, the rule(s) need to be spelled out.

[Ted's Cracked Head]

For the last time now: I have questions or concerns (because I am a stickler for details) over the wording of the following statement and would like clarification:

Should a kicker, punter or field goal holder throw a pass off a fake attempt, however, the offensive output for that offensive play would go towards the individual player, not the specials team. 1) Why only if he throws a pass off this attempt? Isn't it just as likely he will run? He could throw a backward lateral? He could Yepremian it and someone else could pick it up and scamper?

Sound silly? Wait until it happens and see how many pages are added to this thread.

I do not know why the rules would single out a pass attempt and disregard a potential rush but if them's the rules......so be it.

2) Please define "offensive output".

>> Does it include all of the possible offensive stats accumulated? To me the rule implies yes but you use the word "player" and not "players" after singling out the "kicker, punter or field goal holder" which leads me to believe that you may only mean the one who throws the pass. Thus the gray area for me.

>> Will all of the players involved in this offensive play be awarded their stats? Yardage, receptions, tds?

These two are questions that I have regarding the theory behind the rule:

>> If it is an offensive play, why won't the defense be rewarded if they thwart the play and create and recover a turnover?

>> If it is your average offensive play, why aren't the players involved subject to the possible pitfalls like a fumble or INT? A play is a play is what you are saying, why single this one out and reward them for their inability to succeed by NOT penalizing them? Risk/Reward...

Yes, the rules were in tact last year but I didn't see this last year, nor do I recall it being discussed. Thus the questions.

Yes, this may never happen this season but it might. If the play is possible and there is an area that could be interpreted in more than one way, why not define it further?