Help Center
|
|
|
Guest (Login) Help Center |
GLFFL Champions League |
| *Champions Cats | 
Date Sun Nov 4 2:45:55 p.m. ET 2007
|
| Since the Vikings field goal was not a blocked field goal, and there is no scoring listed for a missed field goal return, should Cromartie's return count as 6 points? Does the NFL consider that play a blocked field goal? |
| Commissioner |
Date Sun Nov 4 9:14:58 p.m. ET 2007
|
| It will count as 6 points as a defensive/special teams TD return. I am doublechecking all of the leagues right now to make sure it gets calculated in the point totals. It might not be showing up in the live scoring module but all should be correct by the time the preliminary numbers run after tonight's game. Thanks, Kirk |
| *Champions Cats |
Date Sun Nov 4 9:24:29 p.m. ET 2007
Edited Sun Nov 4 9:30:13 p.m. ET 2007
|
|
| If a missed field goal return was not in the rules as a way to score points, and the NFL doesn't recognize it as a blocked field goal return, how can we add that to the scoring on the fly? The MFL software had it listed at first as a blocked field goal in the scoring, and then when it was changed to a missed filed goal and a return, the MFL software removed the 6 points. I really do not understand why, if the scoring mode isn't speciaifed in the rules (as every other scoring mode is) we are deciding now to let them count. Seriously, we have a specific list of scoring rules and "Missed Field Goal Return" is NOT listed as a means to score points. Just because it was never thought about does not mean we should add it halfway through a season. Perhaps it should be added to the rules for next season. |
| *Big Dog Daddy |
Date Sun Nov 4 9:29:55 p.m. ET 2007
|
| its a SPECIAL TEAMS TD so if the scoring in place awards Special Teams TDs then it ought to count, although not blocked FGA, it was the same as a punt return TD... clearly something we have only seen a few times over the last few years but needs be added IMMEDIATELY instead of "splitting hairs" about whether or not it was in scoring rules as a blocked FG return or a missed FG return my 2 cents anyways |
| *Champions Cats |
Date Sun Nov 4 9:33:06 p.m. ET 2007
|
|
| Then why don't the rules just say "Special Teams TDs" instead of being very specific in listing them? Look, we've never "spilt hairs" and goner with the spirit of the rules, nor how they were intended to read, in the past . . . we always wemt with the letter of the rules wording and looked to change it in the future. Why the change? |
| Commissioner |
Date Sun Nov 4 9:51:54 p.m. ET 2007
|
Since I wrote the rules, I know the spirit of the rules.  It says "NFL TEAM - 6 points for Special Teams and Defensive TDs" and then lists examples. You can argue it both ways and say you get the points because it says special teams and defensive TDs. You can argue against because it's not specifically listed as one of the ways you can score. Bottom line is that it's an example of a special teams/defensive TD. The precedent we go on here is a few years back when someone scored a TD on an offensive fumble recovery in the end zone. It wasn't specifically outlined as a way to score but it fell under the category of a TD scored by an offensive player. |
| *Champions Cats |
Date Sun Nov 4 10:11:10 p.m. ET 2007
|
|
| If "Missed Field Goals" was a selectable option in the MFL software from the beginning of the season, and was never selected, then I don't think it is fair to add/select it now. |
| Commissioner |
Date Sun Nov 4 10:41:35 p.m. ET 2007
|
| You can't penalize owners on a commissioner's omission when it's clearly in the rules that points are awarded for defensive and special teams TDs. The problem I found when looking through this tonight was that some leagues were set with the generic 6 points for all defensive and special teams TDs (in the MFL settings) and some leagues were set with the individual ways that points could be scored on defense and special teams. My view in all of the leagues is that it's part of defensive and special teams scoring and if it's not showing up in the scoring totals as it should, then it's because of an error on the commissioner's part that will be fixed by closely examining all 100+ leagues. |
| *Champions Cats |
Date Mon Nov 5 12:41:18 a.m. ET 2007
|
|
| It's a matter of perspective on who gets penalized. One gets penalized for the oversight and one gets pemanlized for the reversal of it. Personally, I think we should go with what was selected, not what was supposed to be selected since we are 9 weeks into it. The thing is that this league (both conferences) and are so close that six points can make a difference at this point in the final seedings. |
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Mon Nov 5 7:38:20 p.m. ET 2007
|
*Champions Cats :> Look, we've never "spilt hairs" and goner Um, really? Different league I suppose, but I've seen a couple of "spirit of the rule" rulings in Ghost of 9 this year (for example) that were directly contradicted by the written rules we appeared to be playing with. |
| *Champions Cats |
Date Mon Nov 5 9:25:44 p.m. ET 2007
|
|
| *Kobayashi Maru:> *Champions Cats : The Ghost of 9 is a different league in that there were agreements made as such when the Ghost of 9 entered the GLFFL. In every other GLFFL issue that came before the BOD, without exception, the decision was made to go with how the rule(s) was written. Even when the intent of the rule was clear, we always went with the rules (often when an owner was taking advantage of a loophole) and agreed to make the change in the off-season. Frankly, I was one that always pulled for the "spirit of the rule", but was always on the short end of the vote. Now another issue comes up and we go with the intent? I just think we should, at the very least, be consistant. With Parker doing nothing, and Heath Miller with a TD, it probably won't matter in my case (not sure of All Faulked Up's case in NFC), at least not in this league, though it directly cost me a win in Michigan 4. The issue isn't who wins and loses, it's the principal of it. We need to be consistant. I'm not really upset about it, and certainly not losing any sleep over it, but I just disagree with it and think that I have a legitimate point. Granted, it seems that I am in the minority . . . unless it's a case of the silent majority agrees with me. 
|
| *Kobayashi Maru |
Date Tue Nov 6 6:27:06 a.m. ET 2007
|
| Part of those agreements was the approval of the rules as written, and not what was in the head of one or two owners who didn't bother to review the written rules all that closely... |