NFL Stat Corrections are a Joke

[Shuttemdown41 0]

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.

[Stewburtx8 67]

I'm always in favor of getting the call right whenever possible. Hakeem Nicks did catch the ball in bounds so it should of been ruled a catch on the field. But I was surprised the NFL made a correction like this after the fact. What is interesting is that if you watch the video, if it was deemed a catch, Hakeem Nicks should of been marked out at the 6 or 7 yard line where he stepped out of bounds. It really should of been a 25 or 26 yard reception. But on the field, the pass interference occurred at the 9 yard line. Since the PI was accepted, the ball was marked at the 9 yard line. Now a correction was made and he was given only a 23 yard reception because that was where the ball was spotted after the play.

[Forbess 0]

Also watching that play over and over it appears as though the catch was actually about 25-26 yards (play starts at the 32 pushed OB around the 6). PI enforced at the spot of the foul was 23 yards. So if the NFL stat keepers truly want to give credit to Nicks for the catch then they shorted him a few yards IMO.

[Forbess 0]

Yes I get that I said when Andre "doesnt" make the catch. But what you dont get is that in the official's opinion Nick's didn't make that catch. Ruling on the field according to the guys that are paid by the NFL to officiate the game was incomplete pass. To go back days after and give him credit for a reception that was ruled incomplete completely undermines the officiating crew.

[mjsiii 0]

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.

 

I appreciate the compliment and the battle my friend. My only point was that the NFL practices and procedures are illogical and baffling. I was not looking for sympathy. I came here to promote the article(which if you didn't notice, was written by me)

 

I think if this were to debate were to occur face to face, it would have ended in a hand shake and some beers.

 

Which would have then resulted in another debate.

 

You were a worthy opponent. I appreciate the time.

 

Please don't send me a bill, I know how much you guys like to charge an hour.

[Shuttemdown41 0]

I appreciate the compliment and the battle my friend. My only point was that the NFL practices and procedures are illogical and baffling. I was not looking for sympathy. I came here to promote the article(which if you didn't notice, was written by me)

 

I think if this were to debate were to occur face to face, it would have ended in a hand shake and some beers.

 

Which would have then resulted in another debate.

 

You were a worthy opponent. I appreciate the time.

 

Please don't send me a bill, I know how much you guys like to charge an hour.

 

[mjsiii 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

 

We could have stood "on the merits of the argument", but where would be the fun in that?

 

Also, if you were the judge, I would have appealed your decision. I clearly presented a better case (if you turn a blind eye to the hooplah)

[mjsiii 0]

 

hahaha touche

[ralphster 274]

On Tuesday morning I posted the Week Two Recap in the league I run on Yahoo, explaining the pain I felt because I lost by 3.4 points that week to my longtime rival, who had called me Monday night (after Nicks failed to get me the win) and gloated exquisitely into my voicemail (because I sent him straight there cause I knew why he was calling). The next day I found that Nicks and Romo had both had stat corrections, bumping me to a win for week two. FEEL THE WIN BIZITCHES! NINJA ASSASIN WARLOCKS BABY!! SNAP INTO A SLIMJIM!!

 

I immediately called my longtime rival and left a ridiculous gloating as*hole message on his voicemail, knowing that he sent me straight to voicemail because I was calling back to gloat right back at him.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd have laughed it off. Such things happen - as we all know the fantasy sow gives us sour milk upon occasion. You live with it, and you don't go posting to the ff community expecting fellow tears in your beer.

[mjsiii 0]

On Tuesday morning I posted the Week Two Recap in the league I run on Yahoo, explaining the pain I felt because I lost by 3.4 points that week to my longtime rival, who had called me Monday night (after Nicks failed to get me the win) and gloated exquisitely into my voicemail (because I sent him straight there cause I knew why he was calling). The next day I found that Nicks and Romo had both had stat corrections, bumping me to a win for week two. FEEL THE WIN BIZITCHES! NINJA ASSASIN WARLOCKS BABY!! SNAP INTO A SLIMJIM!!

 

I immediately called my longtime rival and left a ridiculous gloating as*hole message on his voicemail, knowing that he sent me straight to voicemail because I was calling back to gloat right back at him.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd have laughed it off. Such things happen - as we all know the fantasy sow gives us sour milk upon occasion. You live with it, and you don't go posting to the ff community expecting fellow tears in your beer.

 

Wasn't looking for tears pal, just questioning the NFL's practices and procedures, which from the looks of it, seem pretty flawed.

[mjsiii 0]

On Tuesday morning I posted the Week Two Recap in the league I run on Yahoo, explaining the pain I felt because I lost by 3.4 points that week to my longtime rival, who had called me Monday night (after Nicks failed to get me the win) and gloated exquisitely into my voicemail (because I sent him straight there cause I knew why he was calling). The next day I found that Nicks and Romo had both had stat corrections, bumping me to a win for week two. FEEL THE WIN BIZITCHES! NINJA ASSASIN WARLOCKS BABY!! SNAP INTO A SLIMJIM!!

 

I immediately called my longtime rival and left a ridiculous gloating as*hole message on his voicemail, knowing that he sent me straight to voicemail because I was calling back to gloat right back at him.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd have laughed it off. Such things happen - as we all know the fantasy sow gives us sour milk upon occasion. You live with it, and you don't go posting to the ff community expecting fellow tears in your beer.

 

and by posting this lengthy, detailed story, aren't you doing the same thing that you just resented me for?

[lexdizzle 1]

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd have laughed it off. Such things happen - as we all know the fantasy sow gives us sour milk upon occasion. You live with it, and you don't go posting to the ff community expecting fellow tears in your beer.

 

They dont affect the outcome of the game, says the person who lost...

[mjsiii 0]

 

They dont affect the outcome of the game, says the person who lost...

 

They don't effect the outcome of the NFL game. They only effect the fantasy community. The same people who go to a game, purchase DirectTV's Sunday Ticket, buy the jerseys; the lifeblood of the league.

 

Why would you do something that pisses them off?

[VinegarStrokes 0]

They don't effect the outcome of the NFL game. They only effect the fantasy community. The same people who go to a game, purchase DirectTV's Sunday Ticket, buy the jerseys; the lifeblood of the league.

 

Why would you do something that pisses them off?

Would it not make the same amount of people happy that it made mad? Just sayin

[giraldi02 470]

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.

 

 

 

You're definitely wrong on this logic. It doesn't matter whether or not Nicks would be pissed. He did not fulfill the language of his contract. 1000 yards is 1000 yards. Not 980. You go to a Target and want to buy a TV you better have the exact dollar amount. You want to break Dan Marino's passing yardage total you better have 5085. You think if Chris Johnson has language in his contract about breaking 2000 yards rushing again and he only gets 1950 yards rushing he's getting a bonus for breaking 2000 yards?

 

 

Dude, you lost a tough one. It's over though. You play fantasy football long enough and you have a game where you're affected by a stat correction.

[mjsiii 0]

Would it not make the same amount of people happy that it made mad? Just sayin

 

First off, great profile name. I can't wait till season 3.

 

Second, yes and no. Nicks' fantasy owners had already come to terms with the result of the play after the defensive pass interference call. It was early in the game so you would assume that Nicks would eventually make up the lost catch.

 

It only stirs up ###### after the fact.

[mjsiii 0]

You're definitely wrong on this logic. It doesn't matter whether or not Nicks would be pissed. He did not fulfill the language of his contract. 1000 yards is 1000 yards. Not 980. You go to a Target and want to buy a TV you better have the exact dollar amount. You want to break Dan Marino's passing yardage total you better have 5085. You think if Chris Johnson has language in his contract about breaking 2000 yards rushing again and he only gets 1950 yards rushing he's getting a bonus for breaking 2000 yards?

 

 

Dude, you lost a tough one. It's over though. You play fantasy football long enough and you have a game where you're affected by a stat correction.

 

Yes i understand the language, but their is a huge difference between buying a TV and paying someone a bonus. You cannot ngotiate with a store like Target unless they honor competitors prices.

 

If Chris Johnson only rushed for 1000 yards, he should not expect anything. If he rushed for 1,950 yards, I think Tennessee would have no problem paying out a negotiated percentage of the bonus to keep him happy. That is the idea of good business. Although contractually he did not deliver on 100% of his goal, he did come damn close and should receive some compensation.

 

I would think that it would be in the team's best interest to do so, or else Johnson would go find a team that would be willing to be a bit more lenient.

 

And I don't care about the loss, I was just saying that it's clear the NFL's practices are flawed. I would have wrote about it win, lose or draw. Losing just motivated me more.

[lod 0]

Yes i understand the language, but their is a huge difference between buying a TV and paying someone a bonus. You cannot ngotiate with a store like Target unless they honor competitors prices.

 

If Chris Johnson only rushed for 1000 yards, he should not expect anything. If he rushed for 1,950 yards, I think Tennessee would have no problem paying out a negotiated percentage of the bonus to keep him happy. That is the idea of good business. Although contractually he did not deliver on 100% of his goal, he did come damn close and should receive some compensation.

 

I would think that it would be in the team's best interest to do so, or else Johnson would go find a team that would be willing to be a bit more lenient.

 

And I don't care about the loss, I was just saying that it's clear the NFL's practices are flawed. I would have wrote about it win, lose or draw. Losing just motivated me more.

 

If a player left a team because they didn't give him anything because he came close to a bonus goal he would look like a major spoiled brat. I am not sure I follow your thinking about what a team would do in this case. You are basically stating what they should do and we have no idea what they really would do. I agree they would try to figure out something but I bet if there were, say a million dollar bonus for a RB for getting 2000 yards, if he gets 1900 yards I am fairly certain the team is not giving them any part of the million. They would just find some other way to keep them happy. I tried to search for some examples but only found this but it is the same type of situation...

 

Warner finished the 2007 season with 27 passing touchdowns, just one shy of the Cardinals franchise record. Warner's performance earned him a $1 million dollar bonus for the year, and he fell just short of attaining a 90.0+ passer rating, which would have given him an extra $500,000.

 

Pretty sure this means he didn't see jack in terms of the 500,000 but there were plenty of other conditions that delivered since he had such an awesome season. So, while the RB in another scenario did not meet 2000 yards, there could be other conditions like touchdown total or total yards from scrimmage that help them receive other bonuses.

[mjsiii 0]

If a player left a team because they didn't give him anything because he came close to a bonus goal he would look like a major spoiled brat. I am not sure I follow your thinking about what a team would do in this case. You are basically stating what they should do and we have no idea what they really would do. I agree they would try to figure out something but I bet if there were, say a million dollar bonus for a RB for getting 2000 yards, if he gets 1900 yards I am fairly certain the team is not giving them any part of the million. They would just find some other way to keep them happy. I tried to search for some examples but only found this but it is the same type of situation...

 

Warner finished the 2007 season with 27 passing touchdowns, just one shy of the Cardinals franchise record. Warner's performance earned him a $1 million dollar bonus for the year, and he fell just short of attaining a 90.0+ passer rating, which would have given him an extra $500,000.

 

Pretty sure this means he didn't see jack in terms of the 500,000 but there were plenty of other conditions that delivered since he had such an awesome season. So, while the RB in another scenario did not meet 2000 yards, there could be other conditions like touchdown total or total yards from scrimmage that help them receive other bonuses.

 

Nice job digging up the stats. So maybe since the Cardinals were contractually obligated NOT to pay Warner for the 90.0+ pass rating, they made up a reason to pay him a million? Sounds fair to me. I would think that lawyers would prevent teams for doing such things so they are not breaching contract. If a team breaches a player contracts, I would assume the contract would be nullified and a player could then shop for a new contract in another city. They still issued him a bonus on principle without breaching contract. Smart.

 

So if Nicks came up short on yards, the Giants could pay him a bonus for achieving over 13+ yards a catch. Basically they could make up anything.

 

I wonder, if Warner did break a 90.0+ passer rating would the Cardinals have paid him 500K for the 27 td's and 500K for the passer rating. Either way Warner got paid.

 

No wonder why he wears such nice suits on the NFL network.

[madd futher mucker 36]

I assume by the number of posts that the OP is a noobie. Having played in about 35 leagues I have had over a dozen game results changes by stat corrections. Sometimes they have been in my favor, other times not.

 

I'd rather have stat corrections than to have won or lost because they got it wrong!

 

My teams were not affected by this ruling, so i am totally unbiased. FWIW, I was slightly surprised that they did a stat correction because of the ruling on the field, but having watched the play and replays, Nicks was obviously interfered with, but despite that it was obviously a catch and a great one at that. The official just got it wrong. The outcome of the play was the same either way regarding yardage, but I'm glad the official NFL stat agency reversed the erroneous ruling and got it right.

[mjsiii 0]

I assume by the number of posts that the OP is a noobie. Having played in about 35 leagues I have had over a dozen game results changes by stat corrections. Sometimes they have been in my favor, other times not.

 

I'd rather have stat corrections than to have won or lost because they got it wrong!

 

My teams were not affected by this ruling, so i am totally unbiased. FWIW, I was slightly surprised that they did a stat correction because of the ruling on the field, but having watched the play and replays, Nicks was obviously interfered with, but despite that it was obviously a catch and a great one at that. The official just got it wrong. The outcome of the play was the same either way regarding yardage, but I'm glad the official NFL stat agency reversed the erroneous ruling and got it right.

 

noob to the site, but been playing Fantasy since 01. I've seen my fair share of stat adjustments, but never to this magnitude so many days later.

[steelers2101 7]

 

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.

 

This. Shuttemdown41 > OP.

[Forbess 0]

I assume by the number of posts that the OP is a noobie. Having played in about 35 leagues I have had over a dozen game results changes by stat corrections. Sometimes they have been in my favor, other times not.

 

I'd rather have stat corrections than to have won or lost because they got it wrong!

 

My teams were not affected by this ruling, so i am totally unbiased. FWIW, I was slightly surprised that they did a stat correction because of the ruling on the field, but having watched the play and replays, Nicks was obviously interfered with, but despite that it was obviously a catch and a great one at that. The official just got it wrong. The outcome of the play was the same either way regarding yardage, but I'm glad the official NFL stat agency reversed the erroneous ruling and got it right.

 

 

I think im the only other guy that agrees with the OP. The way I see it this isn't a stat correction.. its a stat adjustment. To say it is a stat correction would be to imply that a mistake was made on his original total. There is no dispute by the OP or myself that Nicks actually made the catch but stats should be given according to the rulings on the field. No matter how bad the call was the ruling on the field is incomplete pass with the result of the play being a first down from a PI flag. The worst part about it is that they didn't even credit Nicks with the yardage from his "catch" but with the yardage from the flag.. ball at the 32 pushed out at around the 6.. not even close to 23 yards.

 

Lets say next week im watching the Lions game and Stafford throws the ball 10 yards ahead to Megatron who makes an outstanding grab that is ruled incomplete on the field.. but back at the line there is a roughing flag so there is no need to challenge.. spot the ball 15 yards ahead. Ruling on the field remains incomplete.. so two days later is Calvin credited with a 10 yard catch or does he get the Nicks treatment and get credit for where the ball was marked on the next play.. giving him 15 yards. The way the NFL handled this is so flawed its ridiculous.. you just cant go back and give yardage against what your own officials ruled on the field. Of course to anyone but Fantasy guy 23 yards doesn't mean anything so what does the NFL care.

 

For the record I also was unaffected by this play so I am also unbiased. Truth is anyone who barely won their game because of this play received a gift from the NFL.

[backtoprison 0]

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.

 

Does your mommy still make your breakfast in the morning? Do you get all bent out of shape if she pours the milk on your cereal before you're ready and it's all soggy before you can eat it?

 

Doesn't matter how detailed or even correct your argument might be, you're still a monumental whiner. And you sure put it on display here. Wow.

[ralphster 274]

Having played in about 35 leagues I have had over a dozen game results changes by stat corrections. Sometimes they have been in my favor, other times not.

 

I'd rather have stat corrections than to have won or lost because they got it wrong!

 

Nicks was obviously interfered with, but despite that it was obviously a catch and a great one at that. The official just got it wrong. The outcome of the play was the same either way regarding yardage, but I'm glad the official NFL stat agency reversed the erroneous ruling and got it right.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

msjiii - You say you're not crying, so I must be incorrectly interpreting your venting/ranting as tears - my bad. The fact remains stat corrections have always been a part of this game. I've both lost games and won games (first stat correction win ever posted above) this way, but I've never come here to bark so loud or long about what was obviously a catch. Ya win some ya lose some. Better to focus on possible waiver wire gems and injury news to prepare for next week imo.

 

Your vehement defense of the indefensible boggles the mind. I've watched the same play you and everyone else did (during the game and replays and youtube) and every time I see a catch that the official got wrong. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the status of that particular play. Best of luck the rest of the season.

[lod 0]

Nice job digging up the stats. So maybe since the Cardinals were contractually obligated NOT to pay Warner for the 90.0+ pass rating, they made up a reason to pay him a million? Sounds fair to me. I would think that lawyers would prevent teams for doing such things so they are not breaching contract. If a team breaches a player contracts, I would assume the contract would be nullified and a player could then shop for a new contract in another city. They still issued him a bonus on principle without breaching contract. Smart.

 

So if Nicks came up short on yards, the Giants could pay him a bonus for achieving over 13+ yards a catch. Basically they could make up anything.

 

I wonder, if Warner did break a 90.0+ passer rating would the Cardinals have paid him 500K for the 27 td's and 500K for the passer rating. Either way Warner got paid.

 

No wonder why he wears such nice suits on the NFL network.

 

No. I could be wrong but I think the quote about Warner shows he had at least two bonus incentives in his contract - one for total TDs thrown and one for completion %. He met one of them and got paid for it and failed to meet the other one. Why would they award him a million in some way because he came close to a bonus condition that would have only awarded him half of that? We may just have to disagree on this one. I think coming close doesn't cut it. Maybe the contract just has to be worded correctly to make coming close mean anything.

 

Anyways, I somewhat agree with your original arguments. Let the call on the field stand even though it was a catch.

[Antiramie 50]

When has the NFL changed the final score of a game after admitting that a final or clinching play was botched by an official? NEVER.

 

No way in hell Nicks should get an adjustment. It was an incomplete pass on the field. He shouldn't get any of those yards. I don't care if it was an obvious catch that was called that way, and then the Giants took a penalty over the play. If you didn't get the yards on the field, you don't get them after the game.

[RSersen 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.

 

Hell no they're not going to do that.

 

A contract is a contract. If it said 1000, they're not paying unless he would hit that number. If they give it to him for being "pretty close", that opens the door to a host of other players who were "pretty close" to hitting their incentives. And then the team has to define what counts as "pretty close". You turn the entire system of incentives into a giant gray area.....which is exactly why they're clearly spelled out in contracts in the first place.

[dpollaro 0]

i was at the game

the ref on the field DEFINITLEY said the giants declined the penalty

the statistician marked it wrong and relayed to espn wrong.....then they went back and corrected it

[kujerry 9]

The league I'm in they don't correct stats. Scores are official tues Morning. No changing them later.

[Forbess 0]

i was at the game

the ref on the field DEFINITLEY said the giants declined the penalty

the statistician marked it wrong and relayed to espn wrong.....then they went back and corrected it

If that is the case I'm still lost as to why they marked the next play at the spot of the foul.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Don't know about you guys but I believe we have to re-run or manually edit any stay changes in our league (on MFL). I think you have a choice of whether or not it is done automatically.

 

Anyhow, I dont think they should change it. It affects real people's lives with performance clauses.

 

What the NFL should do is look into in regards to that game is players faking injuries!

[mjsiii 0]

Does your mommy still make your breakfast in the morning? Do you get all bent out of shape if she pours the milk on your cereal before you're ready and it's all soggy before you can eat it?

 

Doesn't matter how detailed or even correct your argument might be, you're still a monumental whiner. And you sure put it on display here. Wow.

 

 

Yea man i hate soggy cereal. I don't care about losing in fantasy. I'm just showing that the NFL's systems are flawed. No where on here am I crying about the game. Just baffling practices from the NFL.

 

I'm sure if you were able to see what occured you too would have raised the question.