Gore fumble recovery TD

[detlef]

[

Fighting the intellectual laziness in fantasy football? Funny I thought this was a game for fun, not some grand intellectual endeavor.

 

Keep up the good fight my friend. You seem to thrive on controversy and arguing just for arguments sake some time. As I said in my last post, I nor anybody in any other league should have to justify their scoring to you.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood, but your debate with DOG on this whole point led me to believe that is what you're asking for. Some reasons or justification for why a league doesn't score them. And short of an acceptable reason, you think its dump, silly, whatever that the aren't scored.

 

Steve, don't play that card. We play FF for fun. We come here to discuss and sometimes debate the game. So, save me the "I thought this was about fun" trip.

 

So, I ask you, what is the point of bringing anything up? Apparently, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If one guy has a point and something to back that point up, why should that matter because, "hey, we all have opinions, right"? So what's the point of discussing or debating anything? When all anyone has to do, even someone who admitted that he actually had no reason to do what he did, merely needs to come up with some reason why maybe somebody would, and then play the opinion trump card.

 

You started down this path when, after admitting that you didn't even have this rule in place on purpose, claimed that it still makes it no less valid than rules actually born from intention and thought.

 

Oh, and btw, that doesn't mean you have to have a reason for everything you do.

If nothing else, hopefully this situation pushes your league to review not just this, but all of the league settings to determine what setup the league would prefer.

 

I know I have had a few scenarios pop up this season in a new league where some settings that I thought were default were not, and as we had no consensus within the league we agreed to live with it this season and address in the offseason during rules review.

 

It certainly prompted me to double check any leagues that I'm not commish of to make sure we had it scored this way. They all are, btw, and actually had a role in one of the semis.

[stevegrab]

If nothing else, hopefully this situation pushes your league to review not just this, but all of the league settings to determine what setup the league would prefer.

 

I know I have had a few scenarios pop up this season in a new league where some settings that I thought were default were not, and as we had no consensus within the league we agreed to live with it this season and address in the offseason during rules review.

 

 

I do hope that happens, but just like other times when OFRTD came up and was not scored, the league took no action. And by the league I mean the majority of owners. We DO NOT change scoring without league approval. We WILL NOT just turn OFRTD or all TD categories on without a vote. Problem is our owners as a whole agree on very little, and often look at changes only in how they could affect their team, or benefit somebody else more than them.

 

I will push strongly to include OFRTD, IDFRTD (TD on change of posession) or possibly all TDs. There are some 40+ scoring categories that we do not use, not sure we'll review them all in detail but will take a look.

 

Another strange twist on these TDs is I think if the play was a pass it works differently, if the player who recovers the fumble is the one who fumbled it (at least on a passing play). There was even a thread here discussing it

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/topic/386628-ben-to-brown-brown-fumbles-then-recovers-in-ez/

 

In this case QB pass to WR, WR fumbles and recovers in EZ, receiving TD for WR, passing TD for QB, and length of TD was the whole distance from line of scrimmage. Not an OFRTD, but a receiving (and passing TD). This is another good reason to include the OFRTD, since the TD counts in this case (NFL considers it a continuation of the original play since the fumbling player recovers).

[stevegrab]

[

 

Steve, don't play that card. We play FF for fun. We come here to discuss and sometimes debate the game. So, save me the "I thought this was about fun" trip.

 

So, I ask you, what is the point of bringing anything up? Apparently, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If one guy has a point and something to back that point up, why should that matter because, "hey, we all have opinions, right"? So what's the point of discussing or debating anything? When all anyone has to do, even someone who admitted that he actually had no reason to do what he did, merely needs to come up with some reason why maybe somebody would, and then play the opinion trump card.

 

You started down this path when, after admitting that you didn't even have this rule in place on purpose, claimed that it still makes it no less valid than rules actually born from intention and thought.

 

Oh, and btw, that doesn't mean you have to have a reason for everything you do.

It certainly prompted me to double check any leagues that I'm not commish of to make sure we had it scored this way. They all are, btw, and actually had a role in one of the semis.

 

 

I brought the situation up to get opinions on whether we were handling this properly as commissioners, and whether the disgruntled owner's argument had any merit.

 

My purpose was not to decide whether us not scoring OFRTD was right, or to have to justify what I do in my league or give valid reasons to you and others for why we don't include it. In this thread people called our action (of not scoring the play), lazy, silly, I think one even said it was retarded. Didn't appreciate that kind of attitude on top of having to deal with the disgruntled owner's crap.

 

The rule is valid and has to be applied to our league scoring, regardless of why the rule is in place. We don't score many things, and haven't had lengthy discussions about why. (Bonuses for lenght of a TD for example.)

 

Sorry, not trying to be a prick or argue with you just to argue. But this whole issue really has be pretty POed still, so being criticized for our omission on this rule as some see it bugs me. Don't really want to discuss it any more so that I can move on to other things.

[Big Country]

I do hope that happens, but just like other times when OFRTD came up and was not scored, the league took no action. And by the league I mean the majority of owners. We DO NOT change scoring without league approval. We WILL NOT just turn OFRTD or all TD categories on without a vote. Problem is our owners as a whole agree on very little, and often look at changes only in how they could affect their team, or benefit somebody else more than them.

 

I will push strongly to include OFRTD, IDFRTD (TD on change of posession) or possibly all TDs. There are some 40+ scoring categories that we do not use, not sure we'll review them all in detail but will take a look.

 

Another strange twist on these TDs is I think if the play was a pass it works differently, if the player who recovers the fumble is the one who fumbled it (at least on a passing play). There was even a thread here discussing it

http://forums.thehud...recovers-in-ez/

 

In this case QB pass to WR, WR fumbles and recovers in EZ, receiving TD for WR, passing TD for QB, and length of TD was the whole distance from line of scrimmage. Not an OFRTD, but a receiving (and passing TD). This is another good reason to include the OFRTD, since the TD counts in this case (NFL considers it a continuation of the original play since the fumbling player recovers).

 

 

However, IIRC (perhaps someone can confirm, as I must run to a meeting and can not research past plays right now), if a player other than the original WR recovers, it would not be a passing/receiving TD. Or, in the Gore case, had Gore received the handoff cleanly, but then fumbled and picked it up then scored, it would have been scored a rushing play. The key difference is the change of possession of the ball between two offensive players. Intentional laterals on the other hand are scored as continuations of the original play.

[delusions of grandeur]

The more I think about it, I believe that fumble recoveries should be awarded in FF, especially if your league gives negative points for a fumble.

 

I am in leagues where a player loses 2 points if they fumble. If they recover their own fumble, they get nothing; however, I think that if they recover that fumble, they should get rewarded those same 2 points back. And if another offensive player recovers the fumble, then that player should get the points. If it's an offensive line guard that recovers and you don't play that position, then you don't get the points just like it is with all off FF.

 

Further justification is that most leagues reward fumble recovery points to defenses, so it makes sense that an offensive fumble recovery should be awarded as well.

 

Secondly, fumble recovery yardage is category that I had never consciously thought of. Now that this subject is being brought up, it's one that I think should be counted. For example, if Offensive Player A fumbles the ball and Offensive Player B recovers the fumble and runs an additional 50 yds, then those yards should be counted in FF. If Offensive Player A fumbles the ball, and recovers the fumble, and then runs for 50 yds, I think that they should also be awarded the yardage points.

 

I'm not sure that an offensive fumble recovery should be worth the same as a defensive one, since the defensive recovery involved not only the recovery, but also the forced fumble (unless it's IDP, where IDPers can say better what the norm is). On the other hand, the offensive recoverer obviously is only saving his teammates fumble, not completing the action of a turnover (and to the argument earlier it can just as easily be fluky as it is a skilled heads up play). Thus, to me it's really the forced fumble that makes the defensive turnover more sound as an indicator of performance, and more points for multiple actions completed.

 

But yes, if you want to remain consistent, then I don't see a big issue with rewarding the actions if you're going to reward the TD, anymore than I have issue with any of the other alternatives.

 

Det, you may have a stronger argument to reward them, but that still doesn't change that there are plenty of sound justification for doing it other ways that doesn't involve backtracking or absurd logic. Even if you or relish or I can see that this makes more sense, it doesn't make it silly that someone values categories differently... I just really don't think it's a stretch at all that someone could look at an offensive fumble recovery and say "that doesn't really jive with the way we tend to reward categories in this league, and so I'm not sure it's worth making an exception to how we do things" (because if you're trying to be consistent, it really doesn't). Same goes for those that only score defense and not special teams, TDs and not yardage, etc... Different strokes...

[Ursa Majoris]

Not going to read through the online equivalent of War And Peace but as a Gore owner I'd like to say a couple of things:

 

Most leagues don't score Offensive FR TDs because they are listed differently (they are neither pass nor rush), are rare and simply overlooked.

If your league doesn't have them set up to count, that's your problem. You shouldn't expect the league to adjust scoring to count them, that's nonsense. Change the rule in the off season.

I did notice one or two people say that these TDs are "fluky" or "lucky" so they shouldn't be scored. I think that's drivel - Gore picked up that ball, spotted a way through the D and went for it. He turned a lemon into lemonade and should be rewarded for it. In fact, I'd say his improvisation demonstrated superior skill, above what a regular rushing TD from 3 yards out would have.

All TDs scored by offensive players on the field as part of the offense should count. Period.

[delusions of grandeur]

I did notice one or two people say that these TDs are "fluky" or "lucky" so they shouldn't be scored. I think that's drivel - Gore picked up that ball, spotted a way through the D and went for it. He turned a lemon into lemonade and should be rewarded for it. In fact, I'd say his improvisation demonstrated superior skill, above what a regular rushing TD from 3 yards out would have.

Can be fluky.

 

It's ironic that I got accused of a strawman for giving an example where it was fluky (the Griffin fumble that happened to go forward into the endzone where a teammate was) when you guys are building an argument out of what happened in this one particular instance, the definition of a strawman. It can just as easily be fluky as it could take skill to recover and run it in, thus why I've been arguing an argument I don't necessarily agree with that this is plenty good to give the league discretion on if this qualifies as a worthy scoring category.

[detlef]

 

Can be fluky.

 

It's ironic that I got accused of a strawman for giving an example where it was fluky (the Griffin fumble that happened to go forward into the endzone where a teammate was) when you guys are building an argument out of what happened in this one particular instance, the definition of a strawman. It can just as easily be fluky as it could take skill to recover and run it in, thus why I've been arguing an argument I don't necessarily agree with that this is plenty good to give the league discretion on if this qualifies as a worthy scoring category.

but again, your "fluky" play is still a good play. Anyone who's watched any amount of football knows that just falling on that damned ball can be about as hard as anything that goes on.

 

So, again, apparently not rewarding a great play like Gore's is collateral damage for making sure you don't also reward a guy like Garcion for making a possibly less impressive action that also happens to result in his team getting six rather than giving up the ball.

 

[delusions of grandeur]

but again, your "fluky" play is still a good play. Anyone who's watched any amount of football knows that just falling on that damned ball can be about as hard as anything that goes on.

 

So, again, apparently not rewarding a great play like Gore's is collateral damage for making sure you don't also reward a guy like Garcion for making a possibly less impressive action that also happens to result in his team getting six rather than giving up the ball.

Okay, so you're willing to award plays that may be a little flukier, so that more sound plays get scored. Some other leagues might just say none of them get scored to ensure that the flukier ones don't, even if that means the more sound ones don't.

 

Further, a "good" or fluky play is entirely subjective, and as I've said throughout the thread, this "good" play in your view isn't worth anything anywhere else on the field besides the endzone. So really, your jsutifcation just comes back to "all TDs are scored", since recovering it in the endzone isn't necessarily any different than recovering/returning it anywhere else where you're awarded no points. According to your logic, it's value is completely derived from being in the endzone, something that one can easily disagree makes it worth scoring because it happened in that arbitrary spot, not elsewhere where it's not scored as performance.

 

So again, it comes back to what you feel is worth accumulating points for. Do you value consistency of only rewarding TDs that you also reward/acknowledge the action elsewhere, or do you just say all TDs fly no matter how it happened. Neither way is wrong.

Edited December 19, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[electricrelish]

So again, it comes back to what you feel is worth accumulating points for. Do you value consistency of only rewarding TDs that you also reward/acknowledge the action elsewhere, or do you just say all TDs fly no matter how it happened. Neither way is wrong.

Do you really personally believe in your heart of hearts that a FF league should not score a fumble recovery TD?

[detlef]

 

Okay, so you're willing to award plays that may be a little flukier, so that more sound plays get scored. Some other leagues might just say none of them get scored to ensure that the flukier ones don't, even if that means the more sound ones don't.

 

Further, a "good" or fluky play is entirely subjective, and as I've said throughout the thread, this "good" play in your view isn't worth anything anywhere else on the field besides the endzone. So really, your jsutifcation just comes back to "all TDs are scored", since recovering it in the endzone isn't necessarily any different than recovering/returning it anywhere else where you're awarded no points. According to your logic, it's value is completely derived from being in the endzone, something that one can easily disagree makes it worth scoring because it happened in that arbitrary spot, not elsewhere where it's not scored as performance.

 

So again, it comes back to what you feel is worth accumulating points for. Do you value consistency of only rewarding TDs that you also reward/acknowledge the action elsewhere, or do you just say all TDs fly no matter how it happened. Neither way is wrong.

 

there is a very clear precedent for the same action happening in the end zone mattering a whole lot more, both in FF and in real football.

 

Many leagues do not award a team d for tackles for loss but they do if that tackle happens in the end zone. Should ff not award safeties unless they're prepared to award every tackle for loss?

 

A 15 yard pass at midfield is just that. A 15 yard pass play that began at the 12 yard line results in yards plus 6 pt.

 

Both these plays are worth more or less depending on where they happen. In fact one, just like the fumble recovery in the end zone is only worth anything because if where it happens.

[delusions of grandeur]

there is a very clear precedent for the same action happening in the end zone mattering a whole lot more, both in FF and in real football.

 

Many leagues do not award a team d for tackles for loss but they do if that tackle happens in the end zone. Should ff not award safeties unless they're prepared to award every tackle for loss?

 

A 15 yard pass at midfield is just that. A 15 yard pass play that began at the 12 yard line results in yards plus 6 pt.

 

Both these plays are worth more or less depending on where they happen. In fact one, just like the fumble recovery in the end zone is only worth anything because if where it happens.

 

 

I don't know how many times I have to say that I have no issue with you doing it this way, and I don't disagree with your reasoning. What I disagree with is you implying that this is the right and only way to score the plays (even though you continue to suggest that you're not against people doing it other ways, you've spent the entire thread arguing against just that). There are infinite reasons why scoring is set up particular ways, so I'm done playing devil's advocate. You asked for "any possible jsutification" and I've given you more than enough of it. You don't have to agree for it to still be valid, so I'm done arguing something I'm indifferent about.

Edited December 19, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[delusions of grandeur]

Do you really personally believe in your heart of hearts that a FF league should not score a fumble recovery TD?

 

 

As I've said throughout the thread, I'm indifferent about it. If I joined a league where it counted, fine, and if there was enough support to change rules in the offseason to allow it, I'd probably vote for it.

 

So yes, I have no problem with A fantasy league scoring it, what I take issue with is the suggestion that it's wrong for not ALL to score it. It's up to that league to decide what's worthy of scoring as perfromance and what isn't.

 

As for the plays that have happened this year, I feel the Gore seemed worthy of 6 points, yes, whereas I felt the Griffin fumble into the endzone where Garcon fell on it was not as worthy of 6 points liek a pass/rush/reception, hence why I feel it is a judgement call on how you treat the category (particularly since it's not scored anywhere else, so there is justification, even if you don't agree).

Edited December 19, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[detlef]

I don't know how many times I have to say that I have no issue with you doing it this way, and I don't disagree with your reasoning. What I disagree with is you implying that this is the right and only way to score the plays (even though you continue to suggest that you're not against people doing it other ways, you've spent the entire thread arguing against just that). There are infinite reasons why scoring is set up particular ways, so I'm done playing devil's advocate. You asked for "any possible jsutification" and I've given you more than enough of it. You don't have to agree for it to still be valid, so I'm done arguing something I'm indifferent about.

 

Dude, I've never said "my way is the only way" and when I asked for justification, I suppose I should have clarified with "reasonable justification"

 

And "if you're not prepared to reward an offensive player with recovering a fumble everywhere on the field, then you shouldn't do so in the endzone" falls short of that on the basis I just pointed out. That is only a valid argument if you're consistent in that regard. So, unless you also follow the safties deal, then that argument doesn't fly.

 

Have you ever played in a league that didn't reward team Ds for safeties? If you joined a league that had team Ds and didn't, would you be curious why? If you were told, "well, we don't reward tackles for loss, and a safety is just that, only in the endzone" would you be satisfied?

[delusions of grandeur]

Dude, I've never said "my way is the only way" and when I asked for justification, I suppose I should have clarified with "reasonable justification"

 

And "if you're not prepared to reward an offensive player with recovering a fumble everywhere on the field, then you shouldn't do so in the endzone" falls short of that on the basis I just pointed out. That is only a valid argument if you're consistent in that regard. So, unless you also follow the safties deal, then that argument doesn't fly.

 

Have you ever played in a league that didn't reward team Ds for safeties? If you joined a league that had team Ds and didn't, would you be curious why? If you were told, "well, we don't reward tackles for loss, and a safety is just that, only in the endzone" would you be satisfied?

 

Actually that brings up another point that kind of got lost in the debate.

 

A safety is also a turnover, a defensive fumble recovery is a turnover (not to mention two actions, a forced fumble and a recovery), both of which are primary goals of defensive performance. An offense fumbling the ball and then happening to fall on it is not a primary offensive goal and a resulting score can be absolutely flukey, rather than the actual goals of an offense to pass or run or lateral for their scores (you know the traditional basis for how offense is scored in FF)

 

Thus, it is a grey area at best that I wouldn't fault a league for scoring or not scoring. This is not typical offensive perfromance that every league must be forced to treat the exact same as a passing,rushing, recieving score. That's their choice if they feel it's on par with the other types of scores.

 

(ETA: and yes, I understand you're not advocating forcing them to score it, but you jsut seem completely unwilling to accept any good justification for why they might see this differently. It's purely a matter of opinion of what jives with you wish to score it. It is no more or less wrong because you disagree).

Edited December 19, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[Ursa Majoris]

Can be fluky.

 

It's ironic that I got accused of a strawman for giving an example where it was fluky (the Griffin fumble that happened to go forward into the endzone where a teammate was) when you guys are building an argument out of what happened in this one particular instance, the definition of a strawman. It can just as easily be fluky as it could take skill to recover and run it in, thus why I've been arguing an argument I don't necessarily agree with that this is plenty good to give the league discretion on if this qualifies as a worthy scoring category.

 

 

What do you think about the pass that gets tipped by a defender, tipped by another defender and falls into the arms of the hopelessly out of position WR in the end zone? Score or no score?

 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that all plays CAN be fluky.

[detlef]

Actually that brings up another point that kind of got lost in the debate.

 

A safety is also a turnover, a defensive fumble recovery is a turnover (not to mention two actions, a forced fumble and a recovery), both of which are primary goals of defensive performance. An offense fumbling the ball and then happening to fall on it is not a primary offensive goal and a resulting score can be absolutely flukey, rather than the actual goals of an offense to pass or run or lateral for their scores (you know the traditional basis for how offense is scored in FF)

 

Thus, it is a grey area at best that I wouldn't fault a league for scoring or not scoring. This is not typical offensive perfromance that every league must be forced to treat the exact same as a passing,rushing, recieving score. That's their choice if they feel it's on par with the other types of scores.

 

(ETA: and yes, I understand you're not advocating forcing them to score it, but you jsut seem completely unwilling to accept any good justification for why they might see this differently. It's purely a matter of opinion of what jives with you wish to score it. It is no more or less wrong because you disagree).

 

No, like I said, I'm just not prepared to accept any old argument dredged up to make a point.

 

And I see you've done so again calling a safety a turnover. In fact, it's, at best, sort of like a turnover. If it happens on 3rd down, it has no unique afffect on possession at all. If that tackle happens at the 1, your not getting the 2 pts, but you're still getting the ball, via punt, and actually in much better field position than you will after a safety (aferall the punt will happen 30 yards up the field from where it would have with the safety). Even if it happens on 1st or 2nd and results in a change of possession, you're still getting the ball back well into your own territory, so it's still as much like forcing a punt as it is like a turnover.

 

So, again, you're just walking further down a path of baseless points, just proving the one I was trying to make to steve. Again, that being, "no it's not just the same as any other scoring choice." Because this one requires that you accept some very flimsy logic.

[delusions of grandeur]

What do you think about the pass that gets tipped by a defender, tipped by another defender and falls into the arms of the hopelessly out of position WR in the end zone? Score or no score?

 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that all plays CAN be fluky.

 

 

True, and I don't necessarily disagree (I'm more playing devil's advocate of why some might not see it the same way), but I do think it has potential to be far more fluky, as it can be completely at the mercy of which way the ball bounces, rather than where the QB throws the ball (and I also view it differently than the defense happening to recover, because that action also includes the forced fumble, and both are intended goals of defensive performance). On the other hand, the offense is trying (and is rewarded) to accumulate yards through passes rushes and laterals, not a fumble that they're actually trying not to do. Thus, perhaps you can see why some might view an offensive fumble recovery as often much more fluky and not in the spirit of what the offense is trying to accomplish. In many cases, it's nothing more than a happenstance and in no way is an offensive goal for performance like is defense.

 

So again, it comes down to whether you value "all TDs to be scored" or if you wish your rules to be in the spirit of what each side of the ball is trying to accomplish, and measuring their performance that way. Because at the end of the day, the goal is to score performance as you see fit, not to necessarily accommodate for all the woes of the game that might not be good indicators of performance in your eyes.

 

In other words, jsut because we can;t take all of the fluky plays out of fantasy football, does not mean that one has to accomodate for plays they find to be more fluky and not sound indicators of performance for them. Total grey area and judgement call.

[delusions of grandeur]

No, like I said, I'm just not prepared to accept any old argument dredged up to make a point.

 

And I see you've done so again calling a safety a turnover. In fact, it's, at best, sort of like a turnover. If it happens on 3rd down, it has no unique afffect on possession at all. If that tackle happens at the 1, your not getting the 2 pts, but you're still getting the ball, via punt, and actually in much better field position than you will after a safety (aferall the punt will happen 30 yards up the field from where it would have with the safety). Even if it happens on 1st or 2nd and results in a change of possession, you're still getting the ball back well into your own territory, so it's still as much like forcing a punt as it is like a turnover.

 

So, again, you're just walking further down a path of baseless points, just proving the one I was trying to make to steve. Again, that being, "no it's not just the same as any other scoring choice." Because this one requires that you accept some very flimsy logic.

 

 

Some leagues reward forced punts too. To each his own.

[detlef]

What do you think about the pass that gets tipped by a defender, tipped by another defender and falls into the arms of the hopelessly out of position WR in the end zone? Score or no score?

 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that all plays CAN be fluky.

 

Or like I pointed out before, Brad Johnson catching a pass he threw but was batted back to him and then running in for a score. I'm pretty sure most leagues scored that as both a passing and recieving TD for him.

[delusions of grandeur]

Or like I pointed out before, Brad Johnson catching a pass he threw but was batted back to him and then running in for a score. I'm pretty sure most leagues scored that as both a passing and recieving TD for him.

 

Worth repeating:

 

In other words, just because we can't take all of the fluky plays out of fantasy football, does not mean that one has to accommodate for plays they find to be more fluky and not sound indicators of performance for them. Total grey area and judgement call.

 

[detlef]

Some leagues reward forced punts too. To each his own.

 

Which is fine, but does nothing to back up your statement that a safety is a turnover and, more importantly, why that is the justification for why it is scored in FF. To that end, I've never played in a league that awards forced punts. Nothing against it, and I may be more than happy to do so. However, if we're following your logic, then they'd have to be rewarded because, as much as a safety is, they're also a turnover.

[delusions of grandeur]

Which is fine, but does nothing to back up your statement that a safety is a turnover and, more importantly, why that is the justification for why it is scored in FF. To that end, I've never played in a league that awards forced punts. Nothing against it, and I may be more than happy to do so. However, if we're following your logic, then they'd have to be rewarded because, as much as a safety is, they're also a turnover.

 

Well, following your logic, your league is hypocritical for rewarding safeties, but not punts, since aside from 2 points they are in essence the same thing... But then again, I'm not the one trying to suggest the "correct" way for you to score your league.

 

See, you're having your cake and eating it to. If my (hypothetical) preferences contradict eachother, then that's problematic for you, whereas you can contradict yourself all you want and call it the "correct" way. why am I held to a higher standard because (hypothetically) I have different preferences on what performance is scored in my league.

[stevegrab]

Well at least you guys are both done debating with each other.

 

Sorry but at some point it becomes rather humurous and childish, and makes the thread worthless going forward. But like any good train wreck, I have to look.

[detlef]

Well, following your logic, your league is hypocritical for rewarding safeties, but not punts, since aside from 2 points they are in essence the same thing... But then again, I'm not the one trying to suggest the "correct" way for you to score your league.

 

See, you're having your cake and eating it to. If my (hypothetical) preferences contradict eachother, then that's problematic for you, whereas you can contradict yourself all you want and call it the "correct" way. why am I held to a higher standard because (hypothetically) I have different preferences on what performance is scored in my league.

 

Ooh, so close but no cigar.

 

You started down the whole safties are turnovers bit, not me. I'm just showing you how they're just as much like a punt as they are like a turnover. You know what I like to think of safties as? Safties. This unique play where the offense is tackled in the endzone and the the other team is rewarded with 2 pts and recpetion of a free kick initiated from the 20 yard line.

 

So, because they're sort of like a turnover and sort of like a punt, but not actually quite the same as either, then you can do in FF just like they do in the NFL and have a special and unique prize in store for the team that does it.

Edited December 19, 2012 by detlef