NFL Stat Corrections are a Joke

[mjsiii 0]

Was anyone else effected by this weeks stat corrections? I wound up losing my game by .2 because of the Nicks awarded catch. I found this article saying how basically the NFL needs to stop with the stat corrections for the sake of Fantasy Football.

 

http://thefanhub.com/posts/detail/117783/NFL-stat-corrections-are-a-joke

 

I'd be interested to hearing anyone else's horror stories.

[montana 89]

Sour Grapes?

[MR_never.nude 0]

i wasn't effected by it this week, but i could've easily been. i won by less than 1pt, so i kept my bragging to myself until the corrections were out.

[Matthew's Berry's 0]

Was anyone else effected by this weeks stat corrections? I wound up losing my game by .2 because of the Nicks awarded catch. I found this article saying how basically the NFL needs to stop with the stat corrections for the sake of Fantasy Football.

 

http://thefanhub.com/posts/detail/117783/NFL-stat-corrections-are-a-joke

 

I'd be interested to hearing anyone else's horror stories.

 

You didn't deserve to win ... of course stat corrections should happen! So you telling me you'd be alright if you were on the flip side and watch the game, see Nicks make a catch, but not get it scored? C'mon ...

 

Replay, stat corrections, all good. Better than the alternative.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

Quoted from the article:

 

"Statistical corrections do not affect the final outcome of a game or help boost players salaries, so what’s the point?"

 

Tell that to Nicks if he has an escalator or bonus clause built into his contract that say pays him an extra $1 million if he tallies 1000 yards receiving and he ends the year at 980!

[mjsiii 0]

Sour Grapes?

 

Nah not sour grapes, but I think the league should have a better system. The corrections should be released by the games next morning, not 2 full days after the standings have posted. The NFL can't keep continuing using practices acting as if millions of people aren't effected by player stats.

 

Its one of those things that you'll mock until it happens to you.

[mjsiii 0]

You didn't deserve to win ... of course stat corrections should happen! So you telling me you'd be alright if you were on the flip side and watch the game, see Nicks make a catch, but not get it scored? C'mon ...

 

Replay, stat corrections, all good. Better than the alternative.

 

The call on the field was an incomplete catch. The result of the play was a pass interference call.

 

Even Jaws and the boys went back and said it was a catch after the fact, but the ruling on the field was incomplete. Now three days later they are saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. Sideline judge called it incomplete, so if the Giants declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down.

 

Vick threw a pick against the Falcons that clearly hit the ground costing people 2 points. Shouldn't the NFl review that? Its just a dumb system. Either review every single play upstairs during the game or review none. Once a game is final their should be no stat alterations.

[montana 89]

Been playing since 93 bro, it has. I've been on both sides....And YES, it does suck. Just a part of the game. I have Nicks, but he was on the bench, so no biggie.

[lexdizzle 1]

The call on the field was an incomplete catch. The result of the play was a pass interference call.

 

Even Jaws and the boys went back and said it was a catch after the fact, but the ruling on the field was incomplete. Now three days later they are saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. Sideline judge called it incomplete, so if the Giants declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down.

 

Vick threw a pick against the Falcons that clearly hit the ground costing people 2 points. Shouldn't the NFl review that? Its just a dumb system. Either review every single play upstairs during the game or review none. Once a game is final their should be no stat alterations.

 

get over it baby

[Giants Fan 85]

 

Vick threw a pick against the Falcons that clearly hit the ground costing people 2 points. Shouldn't the NFl review that? Its just a dumb system. Either review every single play upstairs during the game or review none. Once a game is final their should be no stat alterations.

 

This. What if the stat correction made a difference in who would have won or lost the game? They would just not correct it.

[Matthew's Berry's 0]

I will say this is why our league did not switch to IDP ... you want to talk about frustrating stat corrections, holy moly!

[Shuttemdown41 0]

The call on the field was an incomplete catch. The result of the play was a pass interference call.

 

Even Jaws and the boys went back and said it was a catch after the fact, but the ruling on the field was incomplete. Now three days later they are saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. Sideline judge called it incomplete, so if the Giants declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down.

 

Vick threw a pick against the Falcons that clearly hit the ground costing people 2 points. Shouldn't the NFl review that? Its just a dumb system. Either review every single play upstairs during the game or review none. Once a game is final their should be no stat alterations.

 

 

They are NOT saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. What they are saying is that the ruling on the field was incorrect. However, because a penalty was called that had the same result as if they had made the proper ruling on the field, there was no need for the Giants to have the play reviewed. Had that flag not been thrown, the Giants would have had the opportunity at a review at which point Nicks would have been awarded the reception and yardage. To say that "if the Giants had declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down" is flawed reasoning at best when taking into account that they would have had the opportunity to challenge and have the ruling overturned.

[Forbess 0]

The call on the field was an incomplete catch. The result of the play was a pass interference call.

 

Even Jaws and the boys went back and said it was a catch after the fact, but the ruling on the field was incomplete. Now three days later they are saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. Sideline judge called it incomplete, so if the Giants declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down.

 

Vick threw a pick against the Falcons that clearly hit the ground costing people 2 points. Shouldn't the NFl review that? Its just a dumb system. Either review every single play upstairs during the game or review none. Once a game is final their should be no stat alterations.

 

What planet would we be living in where a team would decline a penalty giving them a first down rather than fourth down?

[mjsiii 0]

get over it baby

 

i'm asking people their opinion. Thanks for letting me know that yours will never be valuable moving forward.

[mjsiii 0]

What planet would we be living in where a team would decline a penalty giving them a first down rather than fourth down?

 

That is my point. The official ruled it an incomplete pass and the giants accepted the penalty.

 

Now the league is saying the exact opposite occurred. If you watched the game you would understand what I am saying.

[mjsiii 0]

 

They are NOT saying the ruling on the field was a catch and they marked it wrong. What they are saying is that the ruling on the field was incorrect. However, because a penalty was called that had the same result as if they had made the proper ruling on the field, there was no need for the Giants to have the play reviewed. Had that flag not been thrown, the Giants would have had the opportunity at a review at which point Nicks would have been awarded the reception and yardage. To say that "if the Giants had declined the penalty it would have been a 4th down" is flawed reasoning at best when taking into account that they would have had the opportunity to challenge and have the ruling overturned.

 

Good point, but it never had to go to the booth because of the penalty. But the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, then the penalty would have negated any reasoning to challenge the play. That would mean that if the Giants truly wanted Nicks to have the reception, they would have had to decline the penalty thennnn challenge the play.

[mjsiii 0]

This. What if the stat correction made a difference in who would have won or lost the game? They would just not correct it.

 

Well the only reason I said this is because I had Vick, so I would have won my match up by 1.8 after the Nicks stat correction would have went in.

 

I just think the system is flawed.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

That is my point. The official ruled it an incomplete pass and the giants accepted the penalty.

 

Now the league is saying the exact opposite occurred. If you watched the game you would understand what I am saying.

 

They only accepted the penalty because the result of the penalty was the exact same thing as if the CORRECT ruling had been made in the first place. In the absence of that penalty the Giants would have had the opportunity to challenge, the play WOULD have been overturned (it was a clear as day catch) and guess what? Nicks STILL would have gotten credit for the reception and 23 yards. I watched the game and can't for the life of me understand what you're saying.

[mjsiii 0]

Quoted from the article:

 

"Statistical corrections do not affect the final outcome of a game or help boost players salaries, so what’s the point?"

 

Tell that to Nicks if he has an escalator or bonus clause built into his contract that say pays him an extra $1 million if he tallies 1000 yards receiving and he ends the year at 980!

 

Do you work in sales? I think if Nicks got to 99% of his goal, the Giants would have paid out his bonus in full. I don't think a team like the Giants are in a position to not pay out their star wide receiver if he came the close to hitting the mark. Nicks would be pretty pissed if the Giants were that strict. Considering this, the point is moot.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

Do you work in sales? I think if Nicks got to 99% of his goal, the Giants would have paid out his bonus in full. I don't think a team like the Giants are in a position to not pay out their star wide receiver if he came the close to hitting the mark. Nicks would be pretty pissed if the Giants were that strict. Considering this, the point is moot.

 

No, I work in law so contracts aren't exactly foreign to me. Don't think a team like the Giants are in a position to not pay their star wide receiver you say? Did you happen to miss this whole episode called the lockout from March through July? Think that had anything to do with money and teams trying to cut down the players' share? Do it for one player and you're doing it for every player eventually. Not a precedent teams want to set, trust me. Either way, the reasoning behind the correction is as obvious to me as it is apparently lost on you so with that I'll exit stage left from the thread.

[mjsiii 0]

They only accepted the penalty because the result of the penalty was the exact same thing as if the CORRECT ruling had been made in the first place. In the absence of that penalty the Giants would have had the opportunity to challenge, the play WOULD have been overturned (it was a clear as day catch) and guess what? Nicks STILL would have gotten credit for the reception and 23 yards. I watched the game and can't for the life of me understand what you're saying.

 

Im going to try to describe exactly what happened one more time:

 

I repeat, this is what occurred on the field. This is not at all hypothetical. The following series of events below happened. In order.

 

Nicks gets pushed out of bounds

Official rules it an incomplete pass <- the final call on the field is an incomplete pass.

Flag is throw

While officials deliberate, ESPN shows the replay. Their comments "-It was definitely a catch"

Official turns his mic on

Pass interference defense - 23 yard penalty first down

Giants accept the penalty

Giants receive first down on the 9 yard line.

 

Now the league comes back and says this occurred:

Nicks gets pushed out of bounds

Official ruled it a complete pass

Flag is thrown

Pass interference defense - 23 yard penalty first down

Giants decline, take the result of the play

Ball is placed on the 9 yard line, first down

The official book keeper forgets to mark the catch in the official stat book.

NFL corrects the play/ fires the guy doing the book.

 

I can see how someone doing the book could screw up something like rewarding the wrong person a half sack or fumbles, but not whether someone did or did not catch a ball. Its a yes or no question. And even if he did mark it wrong, don't you think someone would have corrected him by halftime, or by the end of the game? It took them 2 days to get this corrected?

 

I think the league went back and totally covered up exactly what happened on the field for the benefit of Hakeem Nicks receiving an extra catch 23 yard catch. Like i said it doesn't effect the score, so why not do it?

[gocolts 300]

They only accepted the penalty because the result of the penalty was the exact same thing as if the CORRECT ruling had been made in the first place. In the absence of that penalty the Giants would have had the opportunity to challenge, the play WOULD have been overturned (it was a clear as day catch) and guess what? Nicks STILL would have gotten credit for the reception and 23 yards. I watched the game and can't for the life of me understand what you're saying.

This. Thread stater is grasping at straws that are not even there.

[mjsiii 0]

No, I work in law so contracts aren't exactly foreign to me. Don't think a team like the Giants are in a position to not pay their star wide receiver you say? Did you happen to miss this whole episode called the lockout from March through July? Think that had anything to do with money and teams trying to cut down the players' share? Do it for one player and you're doing it for every player eventually. Not a precedent teams want to set, trust me. Either way, the reasoning behind the correction is as obvious to me as it is apparently lost on you so with that I'll exit stage left from the thread.

 

You must have had a long day. Their was a lockout because of an old labor agreement expiring and they couldn't agree on a new one. Players didn't get paid because of that lockout.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that it may be bad business for the Giants to not pay Nicks a hypothetical bonus because he came up 1% short on his goal. I would imagine how pissed Nicks would become and maybe look at other franchises that would be more understanding.

 

I was only in mock trial for 2 years and I could present a better case than you. Boy do I feel bad for your clients.

 

I guess the moral of this thread is to never get into an argument with a lawyer because their so damn technical and refuse to use logic.

 

Thank you everyone else.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

Im going to try to describe exactly what happened one more time:

 

I repeat, this is what occurred on the field. This is not at all hypothetical. The following series of events below happened. In order.

 

Nicks gets pushed out of bounds

Official rules it an incomplete pass <- the final call on the field is an incomplete pass.

Flag is throw

While officials deliberate, ESPN shows the replay. Their comments "-It was definitely a catch"

Official turns his mic on

Pass interference defense - 23 yard penalty first down

Giants accept the penalty

Giants receive first down on the 9 yard line.

 

Now the league comes back and says this occurred:

Nicks gets pushed out of bounds

Official ruled it a complete pass

Flag is thrown

Pass interference defense - 23 yard penalty first down

Giants decline, take the result of the play

Ball is placed on the 9 yard line, first down

The official book keeper forgets to mark the catch in the official stat book.

NFL corrects the play/ fires the guy doing the book.

 

I can see how someone doing the book could screw up something like rewarding the wrong person a half sack or fumbles, but not whether someone did or did not catch a ball. Its a yes or no question. And even if he did mark it wrong, don't you think someone would have corrected him by halftime, or by the end of the game? It took them 2 days to get this corrected?

 

I think the league went back and totally covered up exactly what happened on the field for the benefit of Hakeem Nicks receiving an extra catch 23 yard catch. Like i said it doesn't effect the score, so why not do it?

 

Let me show you how you should have started your sequence of events in an unbiased and factual way:

 

NICKS MAKES CATCH IN BOUNDS

Nicks gets pushed out of bounds

Official rules it an incomplete pass <- the final call on the field is an incomplete pass.

Flag is throw

While officials deliberate, ESPN shows the replay. Their comments "-It was definitely a catch"

Official turns his mic on

Pass interference defense - 23 yard penalty first down

Giants accept the penalty

Giants receive first down on the 9 yard line.

 

 

The entire basis of your argument is flawed because of you inability to accept that first declaration as FACT. Also, could you kindly show us the official detailed breakdown of what the leagues says happened since apparently you have a copy or are privy to that information? In case you're not sure what I'm talking about, refer to your line which says "Now the league comes back and says this occurred:"

[Vikings4ever 497]

I can understand in this case, because the official call on the field was an incomplete pass and a penalty.

 

BUT I'd be much less pissed to lose a game due to a stat correction than to lose a game because the stat provider was wrong.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

You must have had a long day. Their was a lockout because of an old labor agreement expiring and they couldn't agree on a new one. Players didn't get paid because of that lockout.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that it may be bad business for the Giants to not pay Nicks a hypothetical bonus because he came up 1% short on his goal. I would imagine how pissed Nicks would become and maybe look at other franchises that would be more understanding.

 

I was only in mock trial for 2 years and I could present a better case than you. Boy do I feel bad for your clients.

 

I guess the moral of this thread is to never get into an argument with a lawyer because their so damn technical and refuse to use logic.

 

Thank you everyone else.

 

Nice try on the explanation of the lockout. Forgive me if I choose to stick with my very detailed understanding of it over your attempt at simplification. As for presenting a better case, I guess you're that guy that thinks he's infallible and smarter than everyone else because looking around this thread, you're out on that limb ON YOUR OWN. Now, just to put you to bed and tuck you in, I present the coup de grace:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperNzYme?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/zc3dTv9aNJ8

 

Lessons of the day: 1. Never go into a gun fight with a butter knife and 2. Never underestimate the things a Giants fan will put on youtube. Have nice day!

[mjsiii 0]

Nice try on the explanation of the lockout. Forgive me if I choose to stick with my very detailed understanding of it over your attempt at simplification. As for presenting a better case, I guess you're that guy that thinks he's infallible and smarter than everyone else because looking around this thread, you're out on that limb ON YOUR OWN. Now, just to put you to bed and tuck you in, I present the coup de grace:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperNzYme?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/zc3dTv9aNJ8

 

Lessons of the day: 1. Never go into a gun fight with a butter knife and 2. Never underestimate the things a Giants fan will put on youtube. Have nice day!

 

Wow dude, you really had me feeling like an idiot until I actually rewatched the video. Check out the :14 second mark. The official clearly marks the pass incomplete. The officials reward the Giants the penalty and mark the ball at the nine. Where in that do you see the Giants declining the penalty? The game moves on after that.

 

Not to mention that video describes to a T exactly how I described the play in my post above. Maybe I should have written an affidavit for you to comprehend it.

 

If you just presented this as evidence to a jury supporting your case, you would have been laughed out of the court room.

 

No longer am I the guy who assumes he is smarter; I am the guy who is smarter than one lawyer.

 

Which brings me to my lesson of the day: 2nd edition:

1. You don't have to be smart to be a lawyer

2. You are probably better off representing yourself if ever needing a lawyer.

3. Bring butter knife's to fights. Guns tend to jam.

 

The only other reply I want to see from you on this thread is either "I was wrong, I am an idiot" or "Touche". Other than that, I think you should go and brush up on some of you law books. Whoever issued you a Masters degree should loose accreditation.

 

Have a nicer day!

[Forbess 0]

I originally was against the OP but the more I think about it the more im seeing his point. Sure it was a catch but the ruling on the field was incomplete and the result of the play was from PI and not from a catch. This essentially would be the same as baseball going back and awarding Armando Gallaraga a perfect game.. sure in reality the kid pitched a perfect game but according to the call as made on the field he allowed one hit. Its certainly an odd scenario but to me it seems like stats should be awarded based on what was called on the field.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

Wow dude, you really had me feeling like an idiot until I actually rewatched the video. Check out the :14 second mark. The official clearly marks the pass incomplete. The officials reward the Giants the penalty and mark the ball at the nine. Where in that do you see the Giants declining the penalty? The game moves on after that.

 

Not to mention that video describes to a T exactly how I described the play in my post above. Maybe I should have written an affidavit for you to comprehend it.

 

If you just presented this as evidence to a jury supporting your case, you would have been laughed out of the court room.

 

No longer am I the guy who assumes he is smarter; I am the guy who is smarter than one lawyer.

 

Which brings me to my lesson of the day: 2nd edition:

1. You don't have to be smart to be a lawyer

2. You are probably better off representing yourself if ever needing a lawyer.

3. Bring butter knife's to fights. Guns tend to jam.

 

The only other reply I want to see from you on this thread is either "I was wrong, I am an idiot" or "Touche". Other than that, I think you should go and brush up on some of you law books. Whoever issued you a Masters degree should loose accreditation.

 

Have a nicer day!

 

Throw up the blinders and keep ignoring that it was actually a catch. You don't get to point C without passing through A and B first. It's called causality, or more frequently, cause and effect. If that same official who "clearly marks the pass incomplete" had gotten the ruling right initially, there is no need for the Giants to accept the pass interference. Instead, he blew the call and the Giants decided to accept the penalty which would produce THE SAME RESULT as if he had got the call right. In my years of watching football, in EVERY instance in which a team must decide between taking a recorded reception or accepting a pass interference penalty where the outcome of the play will be the same, the team has ALWAYS taken the catch so that the players get credit for it.

 

If you think the "video describes to a T" what you described in your post above without being able to accept and acknowledge that it also proves that it was a COMPLETED CATCH, then you are at the very least guilty of blatant bias (and thus my reference to the blinders). You know you've gotten your tail kicked when you have to stoop to personal insults and jabs in your arguments. I'm used to people trying to deflect attention elsewhere when their argument has as much backbone as a jellyfish. You set yourself up by starting this thread and if nothing else, I'll gladly take out the garbage. You got your teeth kicked in. Enjoy the soup.

[wild_and_crazy_guy 5]

FYI - The stat correction did not hurt your fantasy team. You never had those points in the first place.

[mjsiii 0]

Throw up the blinders and keep ignoring that it was actually a catch. You don't get to point C without passing through A and B first. It's called causality, or more frequently, cause and effect. If that same official who "clearly marks the pass incomplete" had gotten the ruling right initially, there is no need for the Giants to accept the pass interference. Instead, he blew the call and the Giants decided to accept the penalty which would produce THE SAME RESULT as if he had got the call right. In my years of watching football, in EVERY instance in which a team must decide between taking a recorded reception or accepting a pass interference penalty where the outcome of the play will be the same, the team has ALWAYS taken the catch so that the players get credit for it.

 

If you think the "video describes to a T" what you described in your post above without being able to accept and acknowledge that it also proves that it was a COMPLETED CATCH, then you are at the very least guilty of blatant bias (and thus my reference to the blinders). You know you've gotten your tail kicked when you have to stoop to personal insults and jabs in your arguments. I'm used to people trying to deflect attention elsewhere when their argument has as much backbone as a jellyfish. You set yourself up by starting this thread and if nothing else, I'll gladly take out the garbage. You got your teeth kicked in. Enjoy the soup.

 

You are an idiot, and I apologize that I need to start a post this way, but you really are.

 

I ACKNOWLEDGE IT WAS A CATCH. A DAMN GOOD ONE AT THAT.

 

I'm saying you can't go back and reward someone a catch because an official botched a call. The call should stand. Incomplete pass. Obviously Galarraga pitched a perfect game. It will still go down in the books as a one hitter complete game.

 

THE SOUP IS DELICIOUS. Please, for your own career, stop responding. My sister is a lawyer, I can go all night pal.

[Forbess 0]

Throw up the blinders and keep ignoring that it was actually a catch. You don't get to point C without passing through A and B first. It's called causality, or more frequently, cause and effect. If that same official who "clearly marks the pass incomplete" had gotten the ruling right initially, there is no need for the Giants to accept the pass interference. Instead, he blew the call and the Giants decided to accept the penalty which would produce THE SAME RESULT as if he had got the call right. In my years of watching football, in EVERY instance in which a team must decide between taking a recorded reception or accepting a pass interference penalty where the outcome of the play will be the same, the team has ALWAYS taken the catch so that the players get credit for it.

If you think the "video describes to a T" what you described in your post above without being able to accept and acknowledge that it also proves that it was a COMPLETED CATCH, then you are at the very least guilty of blatant bias (and thus my reference to the blinders). You know you've gotten your tail kicked when you have to stoop to personal insults and jabs in your arguments. I'm used to people trying to deflect attention elsewhere when their argument has as much backbone as a jellyfish. You set yourself up by starting this thread and if nothing else, I'll gladly take out the garbage. You got your teeth kicked in. Enjoy the soup.

 

They werent in a position to decide between a reception or accepting PI.. they were in a position to accept PI or decline and face a pending review. And sure the result of the review LIKELY would have been a completed catch but we cant just assume that. How many people would have assumed Calvins TD would have stood last year?

[mjsiii 0]

I originally was against the OP but the more I think about it the more im seeing his point. Sure it was a catch but the ruling on the field was incomplete and the result of the play was from PI and not from a catch. This essentially would be the same as baseball going back and awarding Armando Gallaraga a perfect game.. sure in reality the kid pitched a perfect game but according to the call as made on the field he allowed one hit. Its certainly an odd scenario but to me it seems like stats should be awarded based on what was called on the field.

 

Thank you Forbees. You are thinking logically.

 

A player should not be awarded a catch after the fact because an official screwed up. He missed the call. The Giants get the yards either way.

 

Don't go back and throw your official under the bus and say it was a catch 2 days later then screw with everyones fantasy score because the NFL always has to do "what's right".

 

Everyone knew it was a catch.

 

Its the same logic on a snow cone catch in baseball. If the ump calls it a catch and the game continues, then later on TV the replay shows it hits the ground its still an out. MLB doesn't come back and take the out away. It stands, the game is final.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

You are an idiot, and I apologize that I need to start a post this way, but you really are.

 

I ACKNOWLEDGE IT WAS A CATCH. A DAMN GOOD ONE AT THAT.

 

I'm saying you can't go back and reward someone a catch because an official botched a call. The call should stand. Incomplete pass. Obviously Galarraga pitched a perfect game. It will still go down in the books as a one hitter complete game.

 

THE SOUP IS DELICIOUS. Please, for your own career, stop responding. My sister is a lawyer, I can go all night pal.

 

LOL! Real intellect on this one. I, unlike you, understand how the NFL works in regards to their method of keeping statistics. That you don't, is patently obvious here. YOU'RE saying "you can't go back and reward someone a catch because an official botched a call." The NFL says otherwise. Unless by some tragic set of circumstances you happen to be Roger Goodell (God help us and the league) or someone with the authority to decide what the NFL can and cannot do, what YOU say means as much as this: What baseball allows for is their business.

 

I don't give a rat's rear if your great-grandaddy wrote the constitution! If your sister was a good lawyer, she'd laugh at you during the consultation after hearing you plead your case. The big bad NFL stole a game from under my nose because of how they keep statistics! Boo frickin' hoo. Again, I can make my argument without the need to make personal insults. That you can't tells me all I need to know.

[Forbess 0]

LOL! Real intellect on this one. I, unlike you, understand how the NFL works in regards to their method of keeping statistics. That you don't, is patently obvious here. YOU'RE saying "you can't go back and reward someone a catch because an official botched a call." The NFL says otherwise. Unless by some tragic set of circumstances you happen to be Roger Goodell (God help us and the league) or someone with the authority to decide what the NFL can and cannot do, what YOU say means as much as this: What baseball allows for is their business.

 

I don't give a rat's rear if your great-grandaddy wrote the constitution! If your sister was a good lawyer, she'd laugh at you during the consultation after hearing you plead your case. The big bad NFL stole a game from under my nose because of how they keep statistics! Boo frickin' hoo. Again, I can make my argument without the need to make personal insults. That you can't tells me all I need to know.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

And if I'm TRULY fascinated by the intellect on display?

[mjsiii 0]

LOL! Real intellect on this one. I, unlike you, understand how the NFL works in regards to their method of keeping statistics. That you don't, is patently obvious here. YOU'RE saying "you can't go back and reward someone a catch because an official botched a call." The NFL says otherwise. Unless by some tragic set of circumstances you happen to be Roger Goodell (God help us and the league) or someone with the authority to decide what the NFL can and cannot do, what YOU say means as much as this: What baseball allows for is their business.

 

I don't give a rat's rear if your great-grandaddy wrote the constitution! If your sister was a good lawyer, she'd laugh at you during the consultation after hearing you plead your case. The big bad NFL stole a game from under my nose because of how they keep statistics! Boo frickin' hoo. Again, I can make my argument without the need to make personal insults. That you can't tells me all I need to know.

 

haha wow you must be real fun at family parties.

 

I am obviously the mature one here as I continue to prove you wrong and that you stop responding. You, bragging about being a lawyer, can't end a conversation without getting the last word in (once again because you are a lawyer). It pains you so bad that you were out worked by someone who has never even picked up a law book. Don't preach to me that "you understand how the NFL works in regards to keeping statistics." I think it is evident that you don't understand jack.

 

You've made your closing remarks, as have I. It's up to the jury now.

 

Can anyone following this make a ruling? After being presented the evidence, would you rule in favor of "Shutemdown41" or "mjsiii"?

 

Please do no be shy with your verdicts.

 

 

 

A final word to "the Defense" (thats you, Shutemdown. I figured you didn't "understand" the pun): Never mention my sister again because when I send her the link to this thread, she'll be laughing at you, and then demand that I fill out applications to law school. My applications essay? Guess what? This thread.

 

I guess I should be thanking you.

[UNCDave 0]

I'd rule in favor of the defense.

 

While both did start to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of just standing on the merits of the argument; the plaintiff brought us in a straw man, and then proceeded to use his sister as his biggest supporter.

 

The straw man is forgivable, unsure about the latter.

 

 

 

edited to fix some grammar

[Shuttemdown41 0]

haha wow you must be real fun at family parties.

 

I am obviously the mature one here as I continue to prove you wrong and that you stop responding. You, bragging about being a lawyer, can't end a conversation without getting the last word in (once again because you are a lawyer). It pains you so bad that you were out worked by someone who has never even picked up a law book. Don't preach to me that "you understand how the NFL works in regards to keeping statistics." I think it is evident that you don't understand jack.

 

You've made your closing remarks, as have I. It's up to the jury now.

 

Can anyone following this make a ruling? After being presented the evidence, would you rule in favor of "Shutemdown41" or "mjsiii"?

 

Please do no be shy with your verdicts.

 

 

 

A final word to "the Defense" (thats you, Shutemdown. I figured you didn't "understand" the pun): Never mention my sister again because when I send her the link to this thread, she'll be laughing at you, and then demand that I fill out applications to law school. My applications essay? Guess what? This thread.

 

I guess I should be thanking you.

 

The thing about a message board is that freedom of speech reigns pal. You don't get to tell anyone when to stop posting as you've attempted to do on more than one occasion in this thread. I never bragged about being a lawyer, you asked if I was into sales and I indicated what it was that I do.

 

As for "it paining me so bad...", it's quite clear that I understand EXACTLY how it works and you don't. That is reflected in the fact that the NFL did indeed make a statistical change, thereby prompting you to come whining looking for sympathy on a fantasy football message board. I UNDERSTAND it's well within their rights and power to do what they've done. You DON'T. Don't confuse fantasy (they shouldn't because YOU don't want them to) with reality (they already have and can continue to do so).

 

Never mention your sister again? Am I the one who dragged her into this? Didn't think so. As for you going to law school, I think the world would be a SLIGHTLY more illuminated and educated place for it. I'm all in favor! Finally, I unlike you, don't need anyone else's opinion or judgement on the matter. Nothing anyone else says here will change what has already happened or the way the NFL handles the recording of their stats in the future. No insecurities here, I'll leave that to you.

[Forbess 0]

haha wow you must be real fun at family parties.

 

I am obviously the mature one here as I continue to prove you wrong and that you stop responding. You, bragging about being a lawyer, can't end a conversation without getting the last word in (once again because you are a lawyer). It pains you so bad that you were out worked by someone who has never even picked up a law book. Don't preach to me that "you understand how the NFL works in regards to keeping statistics." I think it is evident that you don't understand jack.

 

You've made your closing remarks, as have I. It's up to the jury now.

 

Can anyone following this make a ruling? After being presented the evidence, would you rule in favor of "Shutemdown41" or "mjsiii"?

 

Please do no be shy with your verdicts.

 

 

 

A final word to "the Defense" (thats you, Shutemdown. I figured you didn't "understand" the pun): Never mention my sister again because when I send her the link to this thread, she'll be laughing at you, and then demand that I fill out applications to law school. My applications essay? Guess what? This thread.

 

I guess I should be thanking you.

 

Im firmly in your corner on this one. It just doesnt make sense to retroactively award receptions and yardage to a player based on a bad call. Play on the field ruled incomplete and yards awarded via pass interference. Next time Andre Johnson goes down field and doesnt make the catch but draws the penalty I want credit for those yards.