• Commissioner Corner Message Board

  • Matt Matt Dec 8, 2009 12:41 PM Flag

    You Don't Change Rules Without Notice

    The Meachem/NO play is obviously controversial, and people obviously have made arguments on both sides. However, we cannot overlook the following:

    Yahoo established a precedent for the treatment of the Meachem/NO play in 2003. Under essentially identical facts, Yahoo awarded a TD to Keenan McCardell and NOT to the TB defense.

    Having established a ruling, Yahoo can not and should not change that ruling without giving notice to its players. Fair play dictates that players know the rules of the contest before the game starts, and that the rules do not change without notice. We all learned what Yahoo's rule was in 2003, and Yahoo hasn't published any changes since then.

    If anyone cared to check, the treatment of this kind of play on Yahoo has been known since 2003. If your league disagrees with Yahoo's precedent, you were free to play at another site or to pass a rule in your league.

    So while it's interesting to debate the minute details of the play, the simple -- and correct -- answer is that Yahoo must be fair and follow its own precedent ... which it did by correcting the score this morning. The current scoring is current.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • We deserve more than a flimsy email. How about a genuine apology...clear logic (explanation)...an upfront disclaimer (in the rules)...a rationale/reason as to why this newfounc "logic" wasn't exercised until week 13 (one game before the playoffs start)...and some more training on stuff like this.

      If yahoo doctrine (i.e., best practices based on history) said 2003 (McCardell incident) was set precendence...then why a 180 degree reversal during weeks 8, 12 and others by Yahoo?

      Any way you cut it: It's not fair to change things without negatively impacting folks...unless the whole thing was wrong to begin with (which means Yahoo didn't listen to the logic from 2003). I believe they can gain MORE respect from folks after the apologize, admit they were wrong and show a way they'll make sure this doesn't happen again. Of course that's going to mean accountability for some pretty smart folks at yahoo.

      All anger aside...I do think they are smart folks and true professionals to handle all of these posts.

    • It change three times from sunday till tuesday witch is the precedent?

      • 1 Reply to doc
      • Doc, it only changed because Yahoo uses a third party company to provide real-time stats, but they are clear that these numbers are estimates. The only final ruling is what they post the day after the last game is played. They make adjustments all the time (just that most aren't as significant).

        I agree there are issues here, and the way they have scored a couple of other plays this year are the biggest problem for their justification.

    • This is puzzling to me since the NO defensive squad was on the sidelines for the entire play.

      Under this same premise, Moore (after intercepting the pass) became an offensive player during the return. Had he returned this for a touchdown, the Redskins DST would not be credited with any points since the intercepting player (Moore) would have transformed into an offensive player before scoring the touchdown... Just consider that scenario before trying to complicate things further. Meachem is an offensive player (WR) and is not a member of the Saints defensive unit. Upon regaining possession (against the Redskins defensive unit) he was still an offensive player, with the offensive unit on the field, who scored a touchdown. How this could be interpreted in any other way is beyond me.

    • For next year, they need to examine these rules and make a clear and concise written ruling in case this happens again. We can't just assume everyone knows what happened in '03, in fact the vast majority wouldn't.

      Furthermore, your implication that this has been applied consistently is incorrect. Users have pointed out other instances where an offensive player forced a turnover after a turnover of his own team and points were awarded to that team's defense.

      • 1 Reply to Jason
      • We deserve more than a flimsy email. How about a genuine apology...clear logic (explanation)...an upfront disclaimer (in the rules)...a rationale/reason as to why this newfounc "logic" wasn't exercised until week 13 (one game before the playoffs start)...and some more training on stuff like this.

        If yahoo doctrine (i.e., best practices based on history) said 2003 (McCardell incident) was set precendence...then why a 180 degree reversal during weeks 8, 12 and others by Yahoo?

        Any way you cut it: It's not fair to change things without negatively impacting folks...unless the whole thing was wrong to begin with (which means Yahoo didn't listen to the logic from 2003). I believe they can gain MORE respect from folks after the apologize, admit they were wrong and show a way they'll make sure this doesn't happen again. Of course that's going to mean accountability for some pretty smart folks at yahoo.

        All anger aside...I do think they are smart folks and true professionals to handle all of these posts.

    • No one is answering the question on why Meachem gets 2 TD's on that one play....I understand the 2003 ruling...that's talking about Players getting TD and Def not getting TD...In my league yahoo gave him an Off Fum Ret TD and a Def TD...he should not get both...period

    • If the rules were so "WELL" known and historical then why did Yahoo immediately award 2 pts for the fumble recovery (acknowledging that NO offense became the defense), then a day later award another 6 pts for the touchdown? THEN, after much debate change it to New Orleans defense pts being awarded to Meachem and stripping them of all 8 pts? Yes, I am bias. This decision has cost me the playoffs in my league. I agree the N.O. defense was not on the field but Yahoo seems to change thier minds like my first girl friend. Actually, more like a referee on the field that throws a pass interference flag because of the reciever's temper tandrum. Again, if precedence was so established, then why the 2 prior calls by Yahoo or the huge debate this has caused. In my opinion, they should award Meachem and the New Orleans defense the 6 pts and all will be happy. I can see both sides of this argument, so why don't we appeal to both?

    • Here's an awesome post

      By not awarding points to NO Defense on the Meachem play, Yahoo is contradicting scoring decisions from earlier in the seaon.

      In week 12, New Orleans played New England. New England fumbled while on offense and a Saints defender recovered the fumble, tried to advance it and then fumbled it again where it was recovered by a Patriots offensive player. In our league, New England D was credited with 2 points for the fumble recovery even though its "defense" was not on the field.

      In week 8, Detroit played St. Louis. Lions QB threw an interception and the Rams player that intercepted the pass ran out of the end zone and then back in and was tackled for a safety by a Detroit offensive player. In our league, Detroit’s D was credited with 2 points for the safety even though its "defense" was not on the field.

      In week 13, Saints played Redskins. Saints QB threw an interception and the Redskins player that intercepted the pass subsequently fumbled the ball again where it was recovered by a Saints offensive player. The player then returned it for a touchdown. After Yahoo adjusted the scoring in week 13, the Saints D was not even credited with a 2 point fumble recovery, nor the touchdown.

      This is directly contrary to Yahoo's scoring policy for the remainder of the season. I can understand the arguments from both sides as to what is proper in this instance, but it appears this decision is inconsistent with prior 2009 scoring decisions.

    • dear mr. commish, the league has already reversed its rulings on at least two separate occasions. the emails bear this out. to say nothing of changing their mind 3 times last nite
      finally nfl.com, who i would certainly think they know what they are talking about, officially awarded the points to the saints def

      • 1 Reply to aycarumba
      • That is absolutely not true.

        This came from myfantasyleague.com:

        “The NFL's official statistician is Elias Sports Bureau. We've personally spoken with their representatives and they've told us that their OFFICIAL ruling on the play was that it was a Fumble Recovery TD. They haven't and we've been told won't specify if it's an offensive or defensive fumble recovery TD - it is considered a "miscellaneous play" as far as the NFL is concerned. The one web page that shows this most clearly is the the NFL's Gamebook of that game, where that fumble is listed under the "Misc" heading, not the "Regular Defensive Play" or "Special Teams" heading. The differentiation between "offense" and "defense" is only relevant to fantasy football in this case, and is not required by their contract with the NFL. In short, contrary to many posts you might have read on the various message boards discussing this topic, the NFL does not officially characterize this as either an Offensive or Defensive play, regardless of what statistics you might find on the NFL.com site or other sites that imply (but never state) otherwise…

        I found this tonight after I called the NFL league office today. I spoke to a guy in the department responsible for rules enforcement and he said, "The NFL does not take a position on whether this is an offense or defense touchdown. We classify it as a miscellaneous touchdown."

    • The only problem with that is in week 8. The st louis game the same thing happened and they credited the fumble to the defense. you have to at least do that. and in week 12 welker recovered a fumble and the ne def was also credited with a fumble

    • Hey buddy, that's cool and all that you've been playing Fantasy Football since 2003, but some of new comers didn't exactly get the memo that Defensive TDs don't count towards the Defense.

      If you can find that for me ANYWHERE in the yahoo rules, I'll shut up. But, you can't. So therefore, your precedent is worthless. It's not accessible by everyone, therefore it's pure garbage dude.

      • 1 Reply to Dennis
      • um, no it's not. This kind of play doesn't happen very often. It is absolutely relevent how Yahoo has scored this in the past. And in 2003 Keenan McCardell scored a touchdown after taking away the ball from a CB who was returning an interception. Same thing. Precedent does matter. And it is widely available. Just look for it.

    • View More Messages
 

Expert Fantasy Advice

Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Football