Look, if you’ve made up your mind not to understand the rule because it seems dumb, counterintuitive, or otherwise objectionable, that’s your prerogative. You can spend the rest of the season being surprised by rulings such as the Freeman TD reversal.

But if you really want to understand why officials keep making these calls, then I think the most helpful formulation comes from Mike Pereira, former VP of NFL officiating: “The ground can’t cause a fumble . . . but [it] can definitely cause an incompletion.”

I wish Keven Seifert had quoted that line from Pereira in his latest article on the “process of a catch” in the NFL. Pereira’s explanation really helps me understand how and why possession is so problematic for catches near (or beyond) the goal line—because it means that possession is routinely established after the play is over and not at the moment when the ball breaks the plane of the end zone (as many fans believe).

Put simply, the clip on the Sports Illustrated website asks the viewer a question (“Is this a touchdown?”) at the same time that it provides insufficient data to answer the question (“We’re not going to show you whether Freeman maintained control of the ball through the process of being tackled and contacting the ground!”). The clip therefore only reinforces the notion that it’s possible to determine whether Freeman had possession before his impact with the ground jarred the ball loose. Since the completion of a pass is a process that includes controlling the ball through contact with the ground, that notion is false—pervasive, but false.

I’m not looking to provoke arguments with strangers on the internet by posting this explanation. I just want to make it more common, in situations such as the one involving Freeman, for fans to turn to each other and quote Pereira: “The ground can’t cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.”

This Week’s Question: What’s the best procedure for expanding a keeper league?

Adding expansion teams isn’t easy in the real world. The NFL probably made things too tough on the Seahawks and Buccaneers in 1976, as the Buccaneers were winless in their first year and the Seahawks had only two victories (including one against lowly Tampa Bay).

However, the league may have made things too easy for the Panthers and Jaguars in 1995, since both teams advanced to conference championships at the end of the following season.

It’s unclear whether the NFL got things right with the Texans and Browns, as the goal may have been to build teams that drastically outperform or underperform expectations year after year for all eternity.

Given the NFL’s track record with expansion teams, it may be reasonable to wonder whether fantasy leagues can succeed where a multi-billion dollar organization has struggled.

Duh, of course they can. That’s what makes them fantasy leagues. And that’s why a reader named Tom would like to get some feedback from owners in keeper leagues that have already added expansion teams without any hiccups:

My league is looking to add two teams, and we're debating how to go about doing that, given that the new teams don't have rosters. We're likely going to have a system that lets them pick from our rosters, much like the NFL adds new teams.

We have a ten-team league with 12 starting positions (QB, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, FLEX, K, DEF, IDP, IDP). We keep 5 players year to year, so we're on the higher side. Total of 5, no more than two from any position. We also organize our draft to give the worse teams from the previous year some better drafting. Not quite as straight up as the NFL does it, but somewhat weighted.

What we're figuring in adding two teams is to have all the current teams choose 4 of their 5 keepers (or maybe three of 5, I'm looking at rosters week to week to see what that would leave, hypothetically). The two new teams would then have a mini-draft to select their keepers, choosing players from the existing teams' rosters. The key would be that only one player can be chosen from each roster. That would mean that all ten teams lose exactly one player each. After the new teams have their keepers, the existing teams would select their fifth (or fourth and fifth) keepers.

We might also consider the two new teams as having had the worst records for the draft. There's some concern about our roster size with ten teams, so after the first year we might revisit that--go down to two WR spots, for example, if we're not happy with what waivers look like with two more teams.

Although Tom’s league has a pretty clear sense of how to proceed, I suspect he and his colleagues would benefit from specific suggestions and guidance. If you know of a keeper league that had a positive expansion experience, please have someone from the league email me with details concerning the procedure they used (or post the formula for success in the comment section below).


Survivor Pool Picks - Week 6 (Courtesy of Matthew Schiff)

Trap Game: New England at Indianapolis

It seems obvious that the Patriots will trounce the Colts. But there are a few reasons to think they won’t. Most importantly, Indianapolis should get Andrew Luck back under center, and he’ll be looking to erase the memories Indy fans have of Peyton vs. Tom Terrific by improving on his own performance against the Pats last season. Luck has made a name for himself with a number of come-from-behind wins in his short career, and he might be able to pull one off against a New England team that hasn’t faced a challenge since beating Buffalo in Week 2. The Patriots had their actual bye in Week 4 and enjoyed virtual byes against a reeling Jacksonville team in Week 3 and a listless, feckless, Dez-less, Romo-less Cowboy squad in Week 5. Since both New England and Indy give up a lot of points and yards, this game may come down to who has the ball last—and you never want to rely on a survival pool pick coming down to clock management. Avoid this one under peril of losing your survival pool just because someone used a timeout at the wrong time in the second or third period.

#3: Seattle over Carolina: (3-2, Cin, Phi, AZ, ATL, KC)

The Seahawks await the return of Marshawn Lynch and may have found "mini beast" in Tom Rawls in his absence. The rookie reminds the Seattle faithful of a young Lynch and once Lynch does return, the two should be interchangeable down the stretch. That only bodes well for a deep run by Seattle. But before they can focus on the playoffs, this team needs to take care of business at home. Fortunately for Seattle fans, Russell Wilson has the best home-field winning percentage (90%) amongst active quarterbacks (28-3) and should continue that trend this week. Take Seattle and their 12th man against a Panthers team that lacks the personnel to test the Seattle defense.

#2: Minnesota over Kansas City: (4-1, GB, Balt, NE, SEA, NYG)

Last week the Chiefs were flying high thinking that they could make a run at the AFC West until the centerpiece of their offense, Jamaal Charles, went down with a torn ACL. This week, those Chiefs go to Minnesota, where they will find the Vikings to be a much improved team from last year with Adrian Peterson in the backfield. AP brings a threat that allows Teddy Bridgewater to exploit the play-action pass as he continues his on-the-job training. As Chicago proved (even without Alshon Jeffery in the lineup), the Kansas City defense can be beat. We all hated seeing Charles go down last week, and we all sympathize with the Chiefs—but sympathy won’t be enough to help them against AP.

#1: Green Bay over San Diego: (3-2 NE, Mia, SEA, AZ, Atl)

Packers at home. Need I say more? For those that need more, Rodgers has started 48 games at home and won 37 of them (77%). Only Russell Wilson (above) has a better percentage. Make no mistake, San Diego is no pushover and will put up some points, but hardly enough to match the Packers at Lambeau. Few weeks are this simple, and if you haven’t used the perennial home favorite this year, this is the week to put it on autopilot.