JAX dst fake punt TD (1 Viewer)

[Anarchy99]

Pretty sure additional yardage from forward fumbles are still not credited to the fumbling player.

The flap a few years back about offensive-fumble recovery touchdowns illustrated that.  Guy fumbles into the endzone at the one, teammate recovers.  Teammate gets a recovery TD, runner gets yardage to the 1 only.

There are a lot of quirky plays where I am not sure how they are scored.

PLAYER X has an 80 yard run. His teammate gets called for a hold or an illegal block in the back (assessed from the spot of the foul, which was 60 yards from the line of scrimmage).

Does PLAYER X get credit for 60 rushing yards? 50 rushing yards? 0 rushing yards? When I look at play by play recaps, it normally says PLAYER X ran for 80 yards. PENALTY 10 yards for holding. It doesn't usually say what the runner was actually credited for.

 

[Arodin]

There are a lot of quirky plays where I am not sure how they are scored.

PLAYER X has an 80 yard run. His teammate gets called for a hold or an illegal block in the back (assessed from the spot of the foul, which was 60 yards from the line of scrimmage).

Does PLAYER X get credit for 60 rushing yards? 50 rushing yards? 0 rushing yards? When I look at play by play recaps, it normally says PLAYER X ran for 80 yards. PENALTY 10 yards for holding. It doesn't usually say what the runner was actually credited for.

I've seen this one.  If the hold moves the ball behind the original LOS there is no play credited.  If the rush advanced the ball from scrimmage, the runner or receiver gets credit for the yards to the new LOS.  So if he runs 80 but the LOS advanced only 50 due to penalty, he gets credited with a 50-yard run/reception.

 

[rickyg]

seems you're the most bitter person in the thread to be honest.

Is that you being honest?  I would much rather you be dishonest.  Why do people say that anyway?  “To be honest”.  Does that mean you’re usually not honest but RT now you’ve decided to be honest in this moment?  lol.  Food for thought. 

 

[Yardage]

You can’t use “the personnel on the field” to determine how to score the play. The reason is because the personnel could could be a mix of regular special teams players and offensive starters. Thus, Blake Bortles could line up as the punter and they hike it to him and he throws a TD. How do you score that?  Do you say only score it as a special teams play if all 11 men are special teams players but it’s not special teams if they line up exactly the same in punt formation and one guy is not a regular special teams player? Of course not. Too much room for arguments. That’s why it’s a 4th down offensive play if the ball is not kicked. Cut and dry.

 

[renesauz]

OP must be new to fantasy football. IN 3 dozen leagues over 20 years...a fake punt has NEVER counted as a special teams play in ANY league that I'm aware of...and shouldn't IMO. It's just a trick play for an offense.

 

[rickyg]

Some good points in this thread.  I see how it was considered a rush.  I don’t necessarily agree that it should be counted as a 4th down rush but it is what it is. 

 

[rickyg]

OP must be new to fantasy football. IN 3 dozen leagues over 20 years...a fake punt has NEVER counted as a special teams play in ANY league that I'm aware of...and shouldn't IMO. It's just a trick play for an offense.

Yes.  I’m very new.  You got it.  How did you diagnose that so well?  

 

[NREC34]

Some good points in this thread.  I see how it was considered a rush.  I don’t necessarily agree that it should be counted as a 4th down rush but it is what it is. 

What down would say it should be counted as?

5th?

 

[Football Jones]

It's an offensive player per NFL rule. It's really the only way to do it in FF, IMO. Also, the results of the play go in the offensive stats.

If it's not kicked, it's an offensive play. You can simply look at this as a trick play with a specific offensive personnel group.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Is that you being honest?  I would much rather you be dishonest.  Why do people say that anyway?  “To be honest”.  Does that mean you’re usually not honest but RT now you’ve decided to be honest in this moment?  lol.  Food for thought. 

Sorry for your loss.

 

[rickyg]

Sorry for your loss.

Bah humbug!  

 

[OU#1]

Is there a Garbage emoji?  This thread sure could use one.

 

[Grahamburn]

I’m sorry you lost your magic football matchup, Ricky. 

 

[jon_mx]

This is exactly why we went to individual special teams players.   Corey Grant is

 

[spodog]

You can’t use “the personnel on the field” to determine how to score the play. The reason is because the personnel could could be a mix of regular special teams players and offensive starters. 

You can if your league rules specify that the formation or the unit on the field at the time the ball is snapped will dictate how the fantasy scoring is recorded for the play. 

The personnel being a "mix" is true 100% of the time.  With the exception of kickers, punters and long snappers, almost every player who plays special teams on every NFL team also has a position on the Defensive or Offensive unit as well.  

 

[Bri]

I agree Ricky, but I think we have this issue every year and I've become trained to it

 

[rickyg]

I agree Ricky, but I think we have this issue every year and I've become trained to it

It’s really pretty simple to me: if it’s 4th down and you want to go for it with your offense you keep your offense on the field.  If you put your punt team on the field and do a fake punt it’s a special teams play regardless of whether or not it was 4th down.  It was a 4th down DST rushing TD and should be credited to the DST.  

I acknowledge everything that everyone else said in here except for the people spitting venom.  I just don’t agree.  The reason why that play works in the first place is BC the offense is off the field and the special teams are on the field.  Thus the defense expects a SPECIAL TEAMS PLAY.  Which they got.  They just got a rare special teams play that caught them by surprise.  So simple.  No gray.  It’s my opinion that the interpretation of this should change in the nfl and in fantasy football leagues. 

Just like that stupid rule that considers a fumble out of bounds at the gl to be a TOUCHBACK and a turnover.  Absolutely ridiculous.  There are several ridiculous rules in the nfl.  I believe this is one of them. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

There's enough luck in fantasy football as is - are we trying to argue that an owner was brilliant enough to have the foresight to choose Jax D/ST because of their excellent fake punt results?

We base almost all fantasy scoring on NFL statistics - why would we change it here? Corey Grant was credited with X number of rushing yards and a rushing TD - that's how it should be scored in fantasy. 

 

[fightingillini]

It’s really pretty simple to me: if it’s 4th down and you want to go for it with your offense you keep your offense on the field.  If you put your punt team on the field and do a fake punt it’s a special teams play regardless of whether or not it was 4th down.  It was a 4th down DST rushing TD and should be credited to the DST.  

I acknowledge everything that everyone else said in here except for the people spitting venom.  I just don’t agree.  The reason why that play works in the first place is BC the offense is off the field and the special teams are on the field.  Thus the defense expects a SPECIAL TEAMS PLAY.  Which they got.  They just got a rare special teams play that caught them by surprise.  So simple.  No gray.  It’s my opinion that the interpretation of this should change in the nfl and in fantasy football leagues. 

Just like that stupid rule that considers a fumble out of bounds at the gl to be a TOUCHBACK and a turnover.  Absolutely ridiculous.  There are several ridiculous rules in the nfl.  I believe this is one of them. 

Come on.  With all due respect, use some common sense. What you're saying isn't necessarily true.  Running the ball is running the ball.  Passing the ball is passing the ball.  It's irrelevant if your QB is throwing the ball, or if it's your punter throwing the ball.  There is no rule that says....only your QB can throw a pass or your RB can run the ball.  The punter can pass, the wide guys (and guys on the end) are still eligible to catch a pass.  What about situations when the team's QB is the holder on a FG...which is common?  The QB is on the field, but it's a FG situation.  

To make your argument work, you have to designate 11 players to just play ST......we all know that isn't the case.  Starting offensive players can play special teams too.  Since you can't designate a player just to be ST, then you have to go with the first description....it's an offensive play with different personnel.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Amazing thread. Pretty sure this comes up every year, almost always because somebody thinks it should count as DST points.

It's scored as an offensive play. There is nothing to discuss. I started playing FF in 1993 and we've scored this as offensive points (not DST) since at least 2000.

How in the world has this gone on for two pages?

 

[BobbyLayne]

You can’t use “the personnel on the field” to determine how to score the play. The reason is because the personnel could could be a mix of regular special teams players and offensive starters. Thus, Blake Bortles could line up as the punter and they hike it to him and he throws a TD. How do you score that?  Do you say only score it as a special teams play if all 11 men are special teams players but it’s not special teams if they line up exactly the same in punt formation and one guy is not a regular special teams player? Of course not. Too much room for arguments. That’s why it’s a 4th down offensive play if the ball is not kicked. Cut and dry.

 

[identikit]

So someone would have won their game if the TD had been counted as a special teams play?

You lost.

 

[Alex - FFPC]

Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread and I assume it has not been. Aside the debate whether this is a D/ST play or not, the reason why Yahoo and CBS does not score this as a D/ST touchdown is because this play does not come thru the scoring feed as a D/ST touchdown. All league management platforms use services like SportRadar, STATS and others for official scoring and when a play like this come thru, it is not tagged as a D/ST play but simply an offensive play. This is exactly how the FFPC receives the scoring data from SportRadar.  So technically we can manually override the SportRadar feed to assign this as a D/ST play if we wanted to, but there is no way to automate this as it's not tagged as a D/ST play when it comes over.

FYI, the FFPC does not score this as a D/ST touchdown as per our official rules.

 

[ATB]

Okay, it was a special teams play. I don’t think I’ve seen a set of league rules under which that would matter.

Scoring systems usually award points according to the type of score that occurred.

Rushing TDs are credited to the runner. Passing TDs are credited to the passer. Receiving TDs are credited to the receiver. Made field goals are credited to the kicker.

Return TDs are credited to the D/ST (and in some scoring systems to the individual returner as well). That’s the only kind of touchdown that the D/ST gets credit for.

The touchdown being discussed in this thread was a rushing TD, not a return TD, so credit goes to the runner, not the D/ST.

Personnel doesn’t matter. When a wide receiver throws a touchdown pass on a trick play, he gets credit for a passing TD (and the quarterback doesn’t). When the up back rushes for a touchdown on a fake punt, he gets credit for a rushing TD (and the D/ST doesn’t). It’s the the type of score that matters, not the position or personnel group of the person who scored it.

Personnel absolutely matters. And again, I'm talking about actual football, not fantasy (although fantasy follows the NFL actual football rules, primarily). 

A WR throwing a TD is not comparable to the play we're discussing because it's all the same players on the field. Typically in that play, the QB is behind center and then moves wide like a receiver and WR moves behind center (wildcat). Or QB just hands off to WR who then throws the ball. 

Point is, the offense is on the field. You acknowledged in the play we're all discussing that the Jax special teams unit was on the field. 

That, and that alone, is why the special teams unit should get credit for the TD. 

Of course, the rules are the rules and I think we're all acknowledging that. We're just saying they don't make a ton of sense in this context. 

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

RTSports had this originally as not a D/ST TD. Now it is. Someone had to go in there and manually change it because as an earlier poster said, the NFL feed does not count it as a D/ST TD. 

I think RT has to explain itself here. I don't think this is consistent with the past.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Of course, the rules are the rules and I think we're all acknowledging that. We're just saying they don't make a ton of sense in this context. 

I don't think everyone is acknowledging it. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding some people's position, but I think some people were arguing that the rules were applied incorrectly in yesterday's game.

As for what the rule should be, that's just a matter of taste. I think the current rule on this issue is more sensible and more parsimonious, and therefore more pleasing, than the alternative. Others may disagree. But that's like arguing about whether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream. Different people are pleased by different things.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

RTSports had this originally as not a D/ST TD. Now it is. Someone had to go in there and manually change it because as an earlier poster said, the NFL feed does not count it as a D/ST TD. 

I think RT has to explain itself here. I don't think this is consistent with the past.

A quick look at our archived results for the 2012 Sept. 13 Packers Bears game in which a fake field goal was a pass play for a TD.

RT did NOT count that as a D/ST TD in our scoring.

 

[ATB]

I don't think everyone is acknowledging it. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding some people's position, but I think some people were arguing that the rules were applied incorrectly in yesterday's game.

As for what the rule should be, that's just a matter of taste. I think the current rule on this issue is more sensible and more parsimonious, and therefore more pleasing, than the alternative. Others may disagree. But that's like arguing about whether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream. Different people are pleased by different things.

I can pretty much agree on all of that. Just wanted to clarify my own position on the matter.

I'd like to see a particular unit get credit for what they do on the field. In the same way that I never liked a D/ST being penalized for their offense turning the ball over and it resulting in points on the board (pick 6's and fumbled returned for TD's), I also don't like a ST unit not getting credit for points they do put on the board. 

It shouldn't always come down to, "This is the way the NFL itself defines this or that." The NFL penalizes a defense for a pick 6 even though they are not on the board. If Bortles throws 3 INT's that result in TDs and the Jax D never even sees the field in the second half, that will still look like 21 points given up by their D in terms of stats. 

But in fantasy, *because we all kept complaining about it*, the Jax D is only penalized for allowing 3 points (for point afters). 

I think this is just another case of, "It makes sense for the NFL to define it that way but it doesn't make sense for fantasy." 

But maybe that's just me...

 

[Steeler]

But maybe that's just me...

I'm not being flippant with this comment, but if you want the D/ST scoring to be this way you should start and be commissioner of your own league.

 

[CalBear]

It shouldn't always come down to, "This is the way the NFL itself defines this or that." The NFL penalizes a defense for a pick 6 even though they are not on the board. If Bortles throws 3 INT's that result in TDs and the Jax D never even sees the field in the second half, that will still look like 21 points given up by their D in terms of stats. 

The NFL doesn't "penalize" the defense for pick-6's. It counts the number of points scored against the team, whatever the source of those points. It also counts the number of passing and rushing TDs given up, so if what you're interested in is how many passing and rushing TDs the team gave up, that statistic is available, and it doesn't include pick-6's, fumble recoveries, or kickoff returns.

 

[Joe Summer]

There are several situations where NFL plays do not easily translate to fantasy football points. But maybe they should. Examples:

- onside kick recovery (shouldn't the Special Teams get rewarded for this?)
- turnover on downs (this is basically the same as a fumble recovery, right?)
- turnover from fumble into opponent's endzone
- points against (most leagues have fixed this, but it took many years to convince people that a pick-six should not count against the D/ST)
- tackle for loss (almost as good as a sack, right? The NFL didn't start tracking this until recent years)
- offensive player who scores a TD or safety while playing defense (if the same player scores a TD on a kick return, then most leagues would award double points to both the D/ST and the individual player; so why not apply the same logic to other TDs?)
- offensive player who gets an interception or fumble recovery while playing defense or special teams (again, if you're in a league that awards double points for return TDs, then why not award double points for turnovers?)
- return yardage while on offense (if there's a double turnover and the RB picks up the fumble and runs 50 yards for a TD, he might get credit for the TD but most leagues won't give him credit for the yards. That's dumb.)
- fumbles lost by the D/ST (if we're going to give the D/ST 2 points for recovering a fumble, shouldn't we also deduct 2 points if the D/ST gives it right back?)
- turnovers during PATs (since defenses can score on PATs now, they should be rewarded for the effort, no?)
- punts or kickoffs that pin the opposing team inside the X-yard line (the NFL only calculates punts inside the 20)
- targets and drops (these stats are now being tracked by major stat services, so why not reward/punish players accordingly?)

Many of these stats are not tracked by the NFL, so it's difficult to easily incorporate them into fantasy football. But they're all worth looking into. One of the cool things about fantasy football is that we think outside the box. You could argue that many of today's advanced stats (such as Targets) can trace their origins to the fantasy football community.

At any rate, the Jacksonville fake punt was clearly an Offensive TD. But....maybe it's time to think outside the box and find a way to reward the Special Teams for pulling off the trick play?

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I can pretty much agree on all of that. Just wanted to clarify my own position on the matter.

I'd like to see a particular unit get credit for what they do on the field. In the same way that I never liked a D/ST being penalized for their offense turning the ball over and it resulting in points on the board (pick 6's and fumbled returned for TD's), I also don't like a ST unit not getting credit for points they do put on the board. 

It shouldn't always come down to, "This is the way the NFL itself defines this or that." The NFL penalizes a defense for a pick 6 even though they are not on the board. If Bortles throws 3 INT's that result in TDs and the Jax D never even sees the field in the second half, that will still look like 21 points given up by their D in terms of stats. 

But in fantasy, *because we all kept complaining about it*, the Jax D is only penalized for allowing 3 points (for point afters). 

I think this is just another case of, "It makes sense for the NFL to define it that way but it doesn't make sense for fantasy." 

But maybe that's just me...

Most sites account for this in their scoring now. RTSports, for example. These points do not count against the D/ST.

 

[ATB]

Most sites account for this in their scoring now. RTSports, for example. These points do not count against the D/ST.

That was the point I was trying to make. There are instances where FF sites deviate from the NFL's scoring system. 

 

[ATB]

At any rate, the Jacksonville fake punt was clearly an Offensive TD. But....maybe it's time to think outside the box and find a way to reward the Special Teams for pulling off the trick play?

That's the only point I (and I think others in here) was/were trying to make. It was the ST unit on the field, so...

 

[Hawkeye21]

I get the reasoning behind why a fake punt or FG for a TD gets scored for the offense but if it were up to me I would change that for fantasy football.  The biggest reason I feel this way is because in most cases no one is benefiting from it.  No one gets points from the punter.  It's very unlikely the person receiving the TD is on a fantasy football roster.  If the points went to the DST unit then someone would actually benefit from it.

I'm not sure if this was brought up but if a kicker throws for a TD or runs the ball does he get those passing or rushing points?  This is one instance where someone may actually have a special teams player starting on their roster and should get those points if the DST doesn't get it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

- turnover on downs (this is basically the same as a fumble recovery, right?)
- turnover from fumble into opponent's endzone
- points against (most leagues have fixed this, but it took many years to convince people that a pick-six should not count against the D/ST)
- tackle for loss (almost as good as a sack, right? The NFL didn't start tracking this until recent years)

I love having discussion on new scoring ideas.

- our league has 4th down stops, worth one point. a couple guys in the league did research on all the ones I’ll talk about & we set them to have realistic value relative to each other.

-not mentioned, but we award 0.50 for 3 and outs.

-turnover from fumble into opponents end zone; I think I am reading this wrong, possibly? If you mean that arose twice on Sunday in different games, Cunningham was charged with a lost fumble and the GB defense got credit for a turnover forced.

-points against for pick sixes seems moot, but I see you’re just highlighting a problem that was corrected.

-TFL we give 0.25, though not if it’s from a sack, e.g., no double counting.

-Yards Allowed is a sliding scale which mirrors the PA scale most DT/DST systems employ.

We use Yahoo, I presume most services have these options available but I no longer play in multiple leagues.

 

[ATB]

Well, there are just two different options available to choose from when setting up your league. On most sites, you can choose either "Points Allowed" or "Points Against Defense". Straight 'Points Allowed' would just take the opponents final score of the game, whether or not there were any pick-sixes or fumble returns. Meanwhile, selecting the 'Points Against Defense' option would remove those scores and only count points scored by the opponent's offense (though, after a pick-six, the D/ST would still be on the line for giving up the PAT or 2-point conversion). 

That's just customization options.

What I'm saying is that this wasn't even an option in years past. So just because it's not an option to allow your ST to be credited with a TD on a fake punt doesn't mean it's not something that could be changed in the future. 

If I'm not mistaken, I thought that was the point of this discussion. Should it be a change for ESPN/Yahoo/CBS et al to make? Not whether or not the Jax D/ST should be credited with that TD now (obviously not based on current rules).

 

[Joe Summer]

-turnover from fumble into opponents end zone; I think I am reading this wrong, possibly? If you mean that arose twice on Sunday in different games, Cunningham was charged with a lost fumble and the GB defense got credit for a turnover forced.

In my ESPN league, Cunningham has -2 for the lost fumble, but the Packers D/ST is only getting credit for a Forced Fumble.

 

[Arodin]

In my ESPN league, Cunningham has -2 for the lost fumble, but the Packers D/ST is only getting credit for a Forced Fumble.

Isnt that right?

Fumble out of bounds doesnt have a recovery associated with it.

 

[Joe Summer]

In my ESPN league, Cunningham has -2 for the lost fumble, but the Packers D/ST is only getting credit for a Forced Fumble.

Isnt that right?

Fumble out of bounds doesnt have a recovery associated with it.

You had described it as a "Forced Turnover", but the NFL does not recognize the turnover. The NFL only credits it as a "Forced Fumble", and does not recognize the turnover. It's no different than (for example) the Minnesota/Washington game, where Keenum caused a fumble when he tried to tackle a guy who intercepted a pass. Washington retained possession, yet Keenum got the same "Forced Fumble" credit that the Packers got when they created a turnover.

 

[Bri]

Randall Cunningham used to punt...js