VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:20:16 12/05/02 Thu
Author: Harv
Author Host/IP: mail.tanagerplace.org / 207.165.164.3
Subject: Re: Hey Cyber...
In reply to: CyberJason 's message, "Re: Hey Cyber..." on 17:58:04 12/04/02 Wed

I was under the assumption that if the ball was recovered in the endzone by someone else, that person would get 6 points and there would be no safety. It's a borderline call. If Rice sacked Brooks in the endzone, or if he sacked him in the endzone and the ball went out of bounds, it would be an easy 2 points. He was sacked near the goal line and fumbled it. The end result was a safety, though. If you want, you can email everyone and get a response from all 7 people and take the majority.

>As I said above I'll go with whatever is the
>consensus, but the question in my mind is if the same
>play happened but Warren Sapp recovered the ball
>before it went out of bounds who(if anyone) would get
>the 2 points? I think the precedent has been Sapp
>would get 2 points for the recovery in the endzone. If
>that is the case then Rice shouldn't get the points
>this week. If Rice would get the 2 points then I think
>he should get the 2 points this week, but I don't
>think we can score points for fumble recoveries and
>probably blocked punt recoveries in the endzone in the
>future.
>
>>It wouldn't be fantasy league without Mock whining for
>>more points and Mike trying to bone him. Ah, the
>>memories . . .
>>
>>If it matters, I say give Mock the points--he'll end
>>up in 6th place either way.
>>
>>>I have had a change of heart--I just wanted to get
>>>Mock fired up. I would be willing to award him the 2
>>>points based on a loose interpretation of the rule.
>>>It just says safety=2 points. You can say that
>Simeon
>>>caused the safety more than anyone else. We'll have
>>>to make sure that we credit any sack that results in
>a
>>>safety an extra 2 points from now on--no matter where
>>>the sack occured. Of course, I will have a different
>>>opinion if I lose to Mock by 2 points. But, I want
>>>Mock to speak to me in the future. I was awarded 6
>>>points earlier in a similar situation, so I can't
>>>argue.
>>>
>>>>Here is the play-by-play line from the game, listing
>>>>the sack and fumble as occurring at the 0 yard-line,
>>>>which would mean in the end zone.
>>>>
>>>>3-8-NO10 (3:24) (Shotgun) A.Brooks sacked at NO 0
>for
>>>>-10 yards (S.Rice). FUMBLES (S.Rice), ball out of
>>>>bounds in End Zone, SAFETY.
>>>>
>>>>I can understand why you would want to bone me over
>>>>since every point counts, but I do think this is a
>>>>legitimate 2 points. I will, however, go with
>>whatever
>>>>the majority thinks with minimal bitching.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is Mock's extremely loose interpretation of
>the
>>>>>safety rule. My understanding of it was that when
>>>the
>>>>>rule was put in (after Mock's bitching 5 years
>ago),
>>>>>if a defensive player sacked the QB in the endzone,
>>>it
>>>>>was +2 points, as the box score would indicate.
>>>>>Brooks was sacked in the field of play, fumbled and
>>>>>the ball was touched by someone else and eventually
>>>>>went out of bounds. This smacked of desperation
>>from
>>>>>Mock when he first brought it up, but I was going
>to
>>>>>wait and see what others thought. While Simeon got
>>>>>the sack, he didn't cause the safety, Brooks geeked
>>>>>out. If Simeon recovered the ball in the endzone,
>>it
>>>>>would have been 12 points. Bottom line: Box
>scores
>>>>>credit safeties and I don't see S. Rice anywhere to
>>>be
>>>>>found. I'm all for slightly bending the rules, but
>>>>>this is a bit of a stretch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm open to everyone elses opinion, but I can't
>>find
>>>>>>any boxscore that credits Simeon Rice with a
>>safety.
>>>>I
>>>>>>assume there was a sack that accounted for the
>>first
>>>>2
>>>>>>TB points but all of the boxscores call it a
>fumble
>>>>>>out of the back of the end zone not a tackle or
>>>>fumble
>>>>>>recovery by Rice.
>>>>>>What does everyone else think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please do not forget Simeon Rice's 2 additional
>>>>>points
>>>>>>>for his safety on Aaron Brooks on Sunday night.
>He
>>>>>>>should have 20 instead of 18. When Brett is
>>getting
>>>>>>>Woodson charity on the last play of the game,
>>every
>>>>>>>one of my points matters tremendously.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.