Peyton could lose his passing yardage record.

[bayone]

This was from a comment on mile high report by some mermber, not the staff

 

the reason this is total ****

 

is because all during that first half after every completed pass, they announced…151 yards to break the record, 146 yards to go, 101 yards to go, 36 yards to go, 17 yards to go, 5 yards to Break the Record…

 

And on top of that, the blown calls by the refs, like on Decker getting face masked causing him to not make a catch don’t get reversed, and that likely would have changed the results,

-------------------------

Thats did occur too

 

If anyone watched the game the announcers even  said and then the replay showed the pull  of the face masks' front guard and head twisting & announcers saying the defender got way with one there ,

and decker did have g hands on the ball too at his outside shoulder and he was twisted back inside

 

It means Manning appeared to be standing behind Decker, which would indicate that he didn't throw the ball backward, and it's not a lateral.

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by Superman

[bayone]

Yeah, that's it.

 

Here is another, but the soutce is Denver post & Fox being asked if known if he would of sent Peyton Back in

 

 

With just more than a minute left in the first quarter, Manning completed what was ruled at the time to be a 7-yard pass to Eric Decker. Upon reflection, though, the pass appears from certain camera angles like a lateral. It wouldn't count toward the record if the NFL were to rule it as such. Manning would finish the year with 5,470 yards, 6 short of Brees' mark, and certainly disappointed. After all, he threw for 266 yards in the first half of the game, and if he'd fallen short of the record, he'd certainly have had a crack at it after halftime.

 

"That's hard to say," Broncos coach John Fox said Monday when asked if Manning would have gone back out after halftime had he fallen short of the record.

 

"What was very positive was I

thought we played if not our best, (then) one of our better halves of

football that put us in a position where we could do different things.

 

Number one, all those things are great—those individual

accomplishments, team accomplishments—but not at the risk of putting a player at risk. So I don't know if I've answered your question, I'm just kind of telling you what would go through our minds in that

situation."

 

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24823030/peyton-manning-passing-record-under-review-nfl

Read more: Peyton Manning's passing record under review by NFL, could be nixed - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24823030/peyton-manning-passing-record-under-review-nfl#ixzz2p4laPaef

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

[Superman]

 

This was from a comment on mile high report by some mermber, not the staff

 

the reason this is total ****

 

is because all during that first half after every completed pass, they announced…151 yards to break the record, 146 yards to go, 101 yards to go, 36 yards to go, 17 yards to go, 5 yards to Break the Record…

 

And on top of that, the blown calls by the refs, like on Decker getting face masked causing him to not make a catch don’t get reversed, and that likely would have changed the results,

-------------------------

Thats did occur too

 

If anyone watched the game the announcers even  said and then the replay showed the pull  of the face masks' front guard and head twisting & announcers saying the defender got way with one there ,

and decker did have g hands on the ball too at his outside shoulder and he was twisted back inside

 

 

I get all those points. Problem is the numbers being announced during the game aren't official. Elias keeps the official numbers for the NFL. As for the uncalled penalty (which absolutely should have been called), that's a different issue. The NFL doesn't go back and retroactively assess penalties. And even if the penalty was called at the time, that actually would have cost Manning 15 yards, because they would have moved forward on penalty yardage, not passing yardage.

 

It's like MAC said: Everyone knows that Manning could have made this a no-doubter. 

[bayone]

I get all those points. Problem is the numbers being announced during the game aren't official. Elias keeps the official numbers for the NFL. As for the uncalled penalty (which absolutely should have been called), that's a different issue. The NFL doesn't go back and retroactively assess penalties. And even if the penalty was called at the time, that actually would have cost Manning 15 yards, because they would have moved forward on penalty yardage, not passing yardage.

 

It's like MAC said: Everyone knows that Manning could have made this a no-doubter. 

 

quite true, think the com mentor meant if no foul occurred and ball then caught

 

anyway enough, have a good day, its wait & see i guess

[MAC]

 

As for the question about stat-keeping, there are people keeping track of numbers at the game for both teams. Their numbers aren't official. The NFL uses Elias to keep official numbers, and when Elias watches all the games after the fact, they send their numbers in, and everyone else reconciles with Elias' numbers. I can't imagine any circumstance where Elias would be watching the game and would call to the stadium to inform a team that they didn't actually break the record they thought they broke, so go try again.

 

The difference between a pass and a lateral is well established. I know what you're saying, but I disagree. It's not about the orientation of the pass, it's about whether the ball goes forward from the passer or not. It's why a shovel pass is a forward pass, but an overhand pass backward is a lateral. No one is suggesting that Manning's shovel passes be ruled laterals or pitches; that would have cost him the record in 2004, and it would reduce his 2013 total by at least 1 that I can think of.

For all I knew Elias watched the games in real time, or the league had official statisticians at each game. If the in game stats are kept by the teams, than clearly they were foolish for being satisfied with breaking it by one. That's too close for comfort. A rounding error on a 5 1/2 yard pass could blow it. But of course a lot of this comes down to the fact that perhaps they didn't care, in which case I probably shouldn't either.

 

I remember the shovel pass in 2004 (if memory serves an opponent had just done the same thing, so it really stood out). Frankly I thought that that was pretty cheap as TD passes go, but of course it's a pass because that's the only way to account for the forward progress before the receiver caught it.

 

Similarly there is a logical reason to distinguish laterals the way that they are now - the receiver has the right to throw the ball, and since you can't have two forward passes on the same play, the initial pass can't be classified as such. Logical or not, it's archaic, with plenty of room for maneuver - such as by calling any overhand pass that leaves that tackle box a pass as long as the receiver doesn't then attempt a forward pass. The fact is that there are precious few trick plays nowadays, but lots of screen passes. Lets say that a play like that happens in the end zone, and the wide receiver than takes it 100 yards for a td. Is he then up for the FED-X ground player of the week honors? You know what I mean - it's a statistic anomaly that I would prefer be classified more usefully. I would bet that anyone playing fantasy football would prefer it as well. Forwards, sideways or backwards, I don't know how anyone can watch that clip and not think that it would be meaningful to differentiate it from Moreno taking a hand-off and running up the middle. If that's a run, then they should go the other extreme and classify ALL passes behind the line of scrimmage as runs.

[Colts_Fan12]

Some of it, maybe... but you don't think Manning has at least a little influence on how long he stays in a game like this one?

I'm sure Peyton wanted to play but they did say it was a coaches decision to not play him at all the 2nd half

[GoPats]

I'm sure Peyton wanted to play but they did say it was a coaches decision to not play him at all the 2nd half

 

I'm sure they said that publicly, but all we hear about is how Fox may be the head coach but Manning is the defacto OC. I think he could have influenced that decision if he really wanted to get out there and eclipse the record by a "safer" margin.

 

Either way, I honestly don't think Manning cares about this a whole lot right now. Pretty sure he'll be focused on whatever defense he's playing in two weeks.

[Jason_]

Not me. If it was Manning clinging to the record I would feel that it wasn't quite legitimate. I couldn't mention it to anyone without the 10 second qualifier about the circumstances - similar to the home run record in baseball. Just annoying to all concerned.

 

Of course there are a lot of records that should be treated that way. ANY single season record should involve clarification about how long the season was at the time - as if the books need to be completely re-written with each modification. Example: OJ Simpson's single season rushing mark is more impressive than than any of those who have passed him. How can anyone say "Eric Dickerson is the blah blah blah" without adding "for a 16 game season. But you wouldn't believe what that deranged killer out in CA did back in 73".

 

Another example - I was literally embarrassed back in Buffalo in 2009 when Peyton dinked 12 passes in a blizzard to Wayne and Clark just to get them each to 100 receptions - whereupon the three of them sat down. He was doing them a favor, but considering that each pass traveled about 2 yards and all I could think about was the fear that someone would get hurt, it wasn't exactly a point of pride. Why any of them would be thrilled with that "accomplishment" is beyond me. Just ridiculous.

 

Whatever happens with this, there won't be a clear answer until it gets broken again.

 

Could it have been that Wayne and Clark had clauses in their contracts that allowed a performance bonus for reaching 100 catches?  I don't remember exactly but seems like that was something that was talked about.

[Superman]

For all I knew Elias watched the games in real time, or the league had official statisticians at each game. If the in game stats are kept by the teams, than clearly they were foolish for being satisfied with breaking it by one. That's too close for comfort. A rounding error on a 5 1/2 yard pass could blow it. But of course a lot of this comes down to the fact that perhaps they didn't care, in which case I probably shouldn't either.

 

I remember the shovel pass in 2004 (if memory serves an opponent had just done the same thing, so it really stood out). Frankly I thought that that was pretty cheap as TD passes go, but of course it's a pass because that's the only way to account for the forward progress before the receiver caught it.

 

Similarly there is a logical reason to distinguish laterals the way that they are now - the receiver has the right to throw the ball, and since you can't have two forward passes on the same play, the initial pass can't be classified as such. Logical or not, it's archaic, with plenty of room for maneuver - such as by calling any overhand pass that leaves that tackle box a pass as long as the receiver doesn't then attempt a forward pass. The fact is that there are precious few trick plays nowadays, but lots of screen passes. Lets say that a play like that happens in the end zone, and the wide receiver than takes it 100 yards for a td. Is he then up for the FED-X ground player of the week honors? You know what I mean - it's a statistic anomaly that I would prefer be classified more usefully. I would bet that anyone playing fantasy football would prefer it as well. Forwards, sideways or backwards, I don't know how anyone can watch that clip and not think that it would be meaningful to differentiate it from Moreno taking a hand-off and running up the middle. If that's a run, then they should go the other extreme and classify ALL passes behind the line of scrimmage as runs.

 

Elias might watch the games in real time, but they don't do so with an eye on making sure everyone at the game knows how they're keeping stats. And I'm pretty sure they go back afterward and review each game before they pass their stats along. Like with the Mathis sack against the Chiefs, sometimes you just don't know until you look at the play a few times.

 

As for distinguishing laterals and screen passes and handoffs and whatnot, I think we're getting there with advanced stats. But those aren't official records. The stats they officially keep don't differentiate between a short pass and a long pass. I get that you're saying we should differentiate between a lateral and a handoff or pitch, but we never have. Do we know how many laterals OJ Simpson had in '73 that were counted as rushes? I don't... As it stands, the differentiation is between a forward pass and a lateral. If the ball goes backward, it's a lateral. It's not really an issue. It's greatly amplified in a situation like this, but I don't think that warrants changing the way they record the play. JMO

 

Another nitpick: A shovel pass doesn't necessarily happen behind the line of scrimmage. The QB can throw the ball beyond the line of scrimmage, and it would be just as cheap. It's still an underhanded pass, akin to a handoff or toss, and the other distinguishing factor is that the ball is going forward (and as you said, the back or receiver can't subsequently throw the ball forward). We can really go tumbling down the rabbit hole here. I'm not sure it's worth it.

 

As a fantasy football player, it's a minor issue. If a player goes 100+ yards for a TD, you get the points either way. The only difference is if you're in a PPR league (points per reception), in which case you'd get a slight bump for the catch, but it would mostly be negligible (and if your league does bonuses for 40+ yard plays or scores, the bonus applies no matter the kind of play; might even be a better bonus for a rushing play than a receiving play, so it might even wash out). This kind of correction is something that fantasy football geeks like myself are used to. I've lost matchups because of stat corrections.

[bayone]

For all I knew Elias watched the games in real time, or the league had official statisticians at each game. If the in game stats are kept by the teams, than clearly they were foolish for being satisfied with breaking it by one. That's too close for comfort. A rounding error on a 5 1/2 yard pass could blow it. But of course a lot of this comes down to the fact that perhaps they didn't care, in which case I probably shouldn't either.

 

I remember the shovel pass in 2004 (if memory serves an opponent had just done the same thing, so it really stood out). Frankly I thought that that was pretty cheap as TD passes go, but of course it's a pass because that's the only way to account for the forward progress before the receiver caught it.

 

Similarly there is a logical reason to distinguish laterals the way that they are now - the receiver has the right to throw the ball, and since you can't have two forward passes on the same play, the initial pass can't be classified as such. Logical or not, it's archaic, with plenty of room for maneuver - such as by calling any overhand pass that leaves that tackle box a pass as long as the receiver doesn't then attempt a forward pass. The fact is that there are precious few trick plays nowadays, but lots of screen passes. Lets say that a play like that happens in the end zone, and the wide receiver than takes it 100 yards for a td. Is he then up for the FED-X ground player of the week honors? You know what I mean - it's a statistic anomaly that I would prefer be classified more usefully. I would bet that anyone playing fantasy football would prefer it as well. Forwards, sideways or backwards, I don't know how anyone can watch that clip and not think that it would be meaningful to differentiate it from Moreno taking a hand-off and running up the middle. If that's a run, then they should go the other extreme and classify ALL passes behind the line of scrimmage as runs.

 

have a question Re rules i dont know, am done repeating myself on my feelings

 

but if u pass  behind so its a lateral but a defender runs fast enough that he catches the behind pass , is it ruled an IT or fumble recoivery

[Fx Stryker]

How long does this actually take? Do they do conferences on these things?

[dgambill]

These type of thread and conversations is how you can separate the crazies from the normal people. Its football...and to see people treat it like its a national emergency is hilarious. If you need to go back and nit pick every play I think that is kinda sad. If it didn't effect the outcome of the game than to me let it be...Peyton or Brady or Brees or Luck or whomever. To take it to the degree where we have to get multiple angles to confirm this is funny. It was called a pass on the field....lets be done with it. This isn't nuclear fusion...lets leave room for the human error or at least interpretation and move on...or we will suck all the fun out of this sport like we have baseball.

[House]

These type of thread and conversations is how you can separate the crazies from the normal people. Its football...and to see people treat it like its a national emergency is hilarious. If you need to go back and nit pick every play I think that is kinda sad. If it didn't effect the outcome of the game than to me let it be...Peyton or Brady or Brees or Luck or whomever. To take it to the degree where we have to get multiple angles to confirm this is funny. It was called a pass on the field....lets be done with it. This isn't nuclear fusion...lets leave room for the human error or at least interpretation and move on...or we will suck all the fun out of this sport like we have baseball.

So you're advocating not having correct calls, when we possess the technology to correct them?

That line of though would seemingly advocate getting rid of replay as well.

Human error sucks.

[dgambill]

So you're advocating not having correct calls, when we possess the technology to correct them?

Human error sucks.

When it doesn't affect the outcome of the game...yes...its stupid to get worked up over spilled milk. Like in baseball....arguing over an error and a hit....you could go on and on....like with this...one angle looks forward the other backwards and in the end...does it really matter....we all know Peyton has had the greatest qb season we've ever seen...and it was incredibly joyful to watch even for non-peyton fans. Why not go back and scratch out every half yard someone didn't get credit for...every inch...I'm sure its possibly with the technology....but is it necessary?

[JoKeR]

How about the NFL just sticks with what was called on the field. I don't see the NFL reversing any games because of bad calls, but it's ok to take away records? What a joke,

[Cynjin]

How about the NFL just sticks with what was called on the field. I don't see the NFL reversing any games because of bad calls, but it's ok to take away records? What a joke,

 

So you are okay with Mathis not being the sack leader.

[House]

When it doesn't affect the outcome of the game...yes...its stupid to get worked up over spilled milk. Like in baseball....arguing over an error and a hit....you could go on and on....like with this...one angle looks forward the other backwards and in the end...does it really matter....we all know Peyton has had the greatest qb season we've ever seen...and it was incredibly joyful to watch even for non-peyton fans. Why not go back and scratch out every half yard someone didn't get credit for...every inch...I'm sure its possibly with the technology....but is it necessary?

No one is losing their minds over it. It's just what Elias does. They review games to make sure the stats reflect what happened on the field.

Everyone was cheering when Elias went back and credited Mathis for his sack fumble in the KC game. But now that the process is working against a player we like it's suddenly a travesty.

He either did or didn't break the yardage record. We have the technology to make that determination. So why not?

[MAC]

Could it have been that Wayne and Clark had clauses in their contracts that allowed a performance bonus for reaching 100 catches?  I don't remember exactly but seems like that was something that was talked about.

Could be. What I'm remembering is that it just seem so counter-intuitive to every normal moment of Colts football  Those little passes seemed to take FOREVER. As I said, "doing them a favor". I didn't think that it reflected on Peyton necessarily, although if it was draining cash out of Irsay's pockets moment by moment (risking injury all the while) you have to wonder how he felt about it.

[MAC]

have a question Re rules i dont know, am done repeating myself on my feelings

 

but if u pass  behind so its a lateral but a defender runs fast enough that he catches the behind pass , is it ruled an IT or fumble recoivery

Good question -  I would guess that it should be a fumble. Isn't that bizarre. I'm pretty sure that the announcers wouldn't be screaming FUMBLE as the defender sprinted for the end zone, but Elias would fix it for us. ;)

[MAC]

These type of thread and conversations is how you can separate the crazies from the normal people. Its football...and to see people treat it like its a national emergency is hilarious.

I beg your pardon. We're just chatting about football - no more "hilarious" than any other conversation on here. I assure you that I for one am not nearly as upset in talking about it as you appear to be by listening to it.

 

Now Michael Schumacher being in critical condition - THAT has me very upset. Which is ironic considering that during his prime I was about as enthusiastic about his success as I am about Brady's or Bree's.

[dgambill]

No one is losing their minds over it. It's just what Elias does. They review games to make sure the stats reflect what happened on the field.

Everyone was cheering when Elias went back and credited Mathis for his sack fumble in the KC game. But now that the process is working against a player we like it's suddenly a travesty.

He either did or didn't break the yardage record. We have the technology to make that determination. So why not?

I'm not advocating either. I could care less about Mathis record or Peyton's...but people get worked up either way and I think its just dumb. Elias can say whatever they want I don't care one bit...but this arguement you need multiple angles and factor in shadows and time of day and the shooter on the grassy knoll...who cares?? Greatest passer of all time or not it doesn't matter. I witnessed all I needed to see from Peyton (statisticly or not) to know where Peyton stands. Same for Mathis in my mind. All I'm saying is do they use the same scrutiny to every play? Do they review every inch...half yard...because thats what we are getting down to with this and the same with baseball and its mind numbing....and dumbing if you ask me...but if you want to make everything about being perfectly correct...black and white in a grey world..please be my guest...i know they make some pills to ease your worries.

[Warhawk]

have a question Re rules i dont know, am done repeating myself on my feelings

 

but if u pass  behind so its a lateral but a defender runs fast enough that he catches the behind pass , is it ruled an IT or fumble recoivery

 

It's a fumble recovery.  Now, it may get called an INT on the field, but since it wouldn't affect the play one way or the other since the ball wouldn't touch the ground, it could be changed to a fumble recovery after the fact.

 

Look at it this way - if Decker drops the ball, and the Raiders recover, and given that it would probably be reviewed either way, what would be the correct call?  It would be fumble, rather than incomplete pass, because the ball was not traveling forward.

[dgambill]

I beg your pardon. We're just chatting about football - no more "hilarious" than any other conversation on here. I assure you that I for one am not nearly as upset in talking about it as you appear to be by listening to it.

 

Now Michael Schumacher being in critical condition - THAT has me very upset. Which is ironic considering that during his prime I was about as enthusiastic about his success as I am about Brady's or Bree's.

I didn't point anyone out...but the convo did seem to get heated a bit..i'm just sitting back and having a good laugh..sorry if i offended anyone in pointing out what i found humourous about the whole thing.

 

Yes..that is a sad and serious story....he got hurt skiing?

[House]

I'm not advocating either. I could care less about Mathis record or Peyton's...but people get worked up either way and I think its just dumb. Elias can say whatever they want I don't care one bit...but this arguement you need multiple angles and factor in shadows and time of day and the shooter on the grassy knoll...who cares?? Greatest passer of all time or not it doesn't matter. I witnessed all I needed to see from Peyton (statisticly or not) to know where Peyton stands. Same for Mathis in my mind. All I'm saying is do they use the same scrutiny to every play? Do they review every inch...half yard...because thats what we are getting down to with this and the same with baseball and its mind numbing....and dumbing if you ask me...but if you want to make everything about being perfectly correct...black and white in a grey world..please be my guest...i know they make some pills to ease your worries.

Who is getting worked up though? The only posters I've seen who are remotely worked up are those unhappy with the prospect of Peyton losing the record.

Elias has a job, and that is tracking the stats. It's not a hobby. They also aren't disputing inches or yardage. They're disputing the type of play the yardage came from.

[MAC]

I didn't point anyone out...but the convo did seem to get heated a bit..i'm just sitting back and having a good laugh..sorry if i offended anyone in pointing out what i found humourous about the whole thing.

 

Yes..that is a sad and serious story....he got hurt skiing?

Yup. Not on a marked trail, but not thrill-seeking, just routine skiing with his son. Hit his head on a rock. Wearing a helmet - would be gone already without it. Can't imagine how the kid feels.

[bayone]

It's a fumble recovery.  Now, it may get called an INT on the field, but since it wouldn't affect the play one way or the other since the ball wouldn't touch the ground, it could be changed to a fumble recovery after the fact.

 

Look at it this way - if Decker drops the ball, and the Raiders recover, and given that it would probably be reviewed either way, what would be the correct call?  It would be fumble, rather than incomplete pass, because the ball was not traveling forward.

 

Thank you

[bayone]

bress on hearing peyton broke record by 1 yard

 

Brees talked about Manning's accomplishment after the Saints' 42-17 victory over theTampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday. 

When first told that Manning wound up beating him by one yard, Brees said, “Are you kidding me? Wow.” Then he was told that Manning sat out the rest of the game after the mark was broken. 

“Well, I guess had I had a hundred more yards, they would have kept him in and he would have eventually broken it anyway,” Brees said. “Listen, he and that team has had a storybook year, in regards to the numbers they've been able to put up and the way that they've played. A lot of credit to him and his preparation and his level of play. It's impressive. All records are made to be broken. 

“I thought I might have that one for a little bit longer than just two years. But records are made to be broken.” 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post/_/id/53618/saints-morning-report-brees-record-intact

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Who is getting worked up though? The only posters I've seen who are remotely worked up are those unhappy with the prospect of Peyton losing the record.

Elias has a job, and that is tracking the stats. It's not a hobby. They also aren't disputing inches or yardage. They're disputing the type of play the yardage came from.

I'm not sure why everyone is getting so worked up.  Someone will probably break the record again next year or the year after.

[braveheartcolt]

Not that I care much, but if they strip the yards, he'll just come back next year and do it.

[Superman]

Peter King: http://mmqb.si.com/2013/12/31/peyton-manning-denver-broncos-passing-record/?eref=sihp

[amfootball]

Peter King: http://mmqb.si.com/2013/12/31/peyton-manning-denver-broncos-passing-record/?eref=sihp

King loves Manning so this is a pretty strong argument in favor of taking the yards and record away.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Why don't they show us the footage from the overhead camera angle which shows a forward pass? 

[dgambill]

Who is getting worked up though? The only posters I've seen who are remotely worked up are those unhappy with the prospect of Peyton losing the record.

Elias has a job, and that is tracking the stats. It's not a hobby. They also aren't disputing inches or yardage. They're disputing the type of play the yardage came from.

And what I'm saying is I don't think its necessary to worry about Elias but obviously people seem to care. I'm saying if we want to be soo precise we need to review every inch correct...because we have the technology i'm sure...and how rediculous that would be...yes every inch adds up and every half yard given or not could add up...what I'm saying is yards is already not a precise measurement so I don't see the since in going back and arguing over it...especially one in which it could be argued either way because depending on the angle it seems disputable. But hey...carry on..I didn't mean to side track the debate...just thought that having a debate at all seemed kinda pointless.

[dgambill]

Why don't they show us the footage from the overhead camera angle which shows a forward pass? 

Got burned with the NE tapes....yes..almost 10 yrs before it happened lol!!

[-JJ-]

Personally I think ref calls stand so therefore any records stand with it- good or bad.

 

Like he cares anyway

[House]

And what I'm saying is I don't think its necessary to worry about Elias but obviously people seem to care. I'm saying if we want to be soo precise we need to review every inch correct...because we have the technology i'm sure...and how rediculous that would be...yes every inch adds up and every half yard given or not could add up...what I'm saying is yards is already not a precise measurement so I don't see the since in going back and arguing over it...especially one in which it could be argued either way because depending on the angle it seems disputable. But hey...carry on..I didn't mean to side track the debate...just thought that having a debate at all seemed kinda pointless.

Again. They aren't measuring every inch and every yard. They're determining if the yards should be attributed to a pass play. Or a lateral.

Two different topics you're bringing up.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Statistics should be "amoral" and without emotion.  They are what they are or aren't.  There should be no fond thoughts that are allowed to color them.  Also, bad non-calls that prevented additional yardage are exactly that non-calls.  You could require a statistician to go look at an entire season's film to "adjust" the totals if you even thought about making that adjustment.  Every league record in history was set with imperfect officiating results.

 

If it's a backward pass, they should shift the yardage into the appropriate column.  It's on his coaching staff who chose to pull him out of the game for obviously important reasons. 

[Warhawk]

Personally I think ref calls stand so therefore any records stand with it- good or bad.

 

Like he cares anyway

 

The refs don't make a call there in the first place.  Decker obtains possession without the ball touching the ground, so, from the referees' standpoint, it makes no difference whether it was a forward pass or a lateral.  The refs don't keep stats.  Just like if a player is tackled, it makes no difference to the refs which player is credited with the tackle - the only thing the refs are concerned about is whether the player with the ball was down, and where.  The statisticians are the ones who determine who gets the credit in their tackle column, or whether to classify yards gained on a particular play as receiving or rushing yards.

[dgambill]

Again. They aren't measuring every inch and every yard. They're determining if the yards should be attributed to a pass play. Or a lateral.

Two different topics you're bringing up.

No. I'm saying I dont care if its a pass or not...if I look at an inch forward or backwards I say count the inches each player runs with it or it goes too....so what i'm really saying is if people are so obsessed with an inch or two...count them all...not just if it was a pass or not....i'm saying let it be...do we really care??? That all said obviously people do and I don't so I made my point and I will let this go. Whatever happens I won't care one bit..I just think its wierd to even go back to look at this stuff....EVER...regardless of circumstance.

[Warhawk]

No. I'm saying I dont care if its a pass or not...if I look at an inch forward or backwards I say count the inches each player runs with it or it goes too....so what i'm really saying is if people are so obsessed with an inch or two...count them all...not just if it was a pass or not....i'm saying let it be...do we really care??? That all said obviously people do and I don't so I made my point and I will let this go. Whatever happens I won't care one bit..I just think its wierd to even go back to look at this stuff....EVER...regardless of circumstance.

 

We get it, you don't care about a high degree of accuracy in stat-keeping.  So, why get involved in this debate?  I mean, I absolutely agree with you that I don't need stats to appreciate that Manning is a great QB, but, that's kind of besides the point.  Just because you think it's crazy that people care about stats and records doesn't mean that their opinions on the matter are invalid.  I mean, there's nothing wrong with your opinion that it doesn't matter whether Manning breaks Brees' record, because there's nothing wrong with taking a largely subjective, wide-lens view of analyzing quarterback quality.  More power to you for that.

 

But frankly, coming into a thread where people are discussing how to treat a play on the stat sheet and going on and on about how you don't really care about statistics is sorta like coming into a thread where people are debating whether star wars or star trek is better and posting about how you prefer the works of Jane Austen over modern speculative fiction.  OK, valid opinion no matter how much I loathe Jane Austen, but it's not really relevant to the debate, and it doesn't invalidate the debate in any way either.  Lots of people care about stats and records.  Lots of people also like drag racing, or caviar, or JRPGs.  I don't like any of those things, but that doesn't mean a debate over which kind of fish has the tastiest eggs has no value.  Maybe not to me, but its perfectly legitimate to them.

 

In any case, the point in regards to your comment is that they're not nitpicking to quite that level.  What they do when they review the games is adjust fairly basic things, like who gets credit for a tackle or a sack, or whether a play was a run or a pass.  Insofar as WR targets is measured, I know that's something that can get changed a fair bit too.  The key difference here is that they're not changing anything that actually happened in the game, and they're not fixing refs' mistakes or anything like that.  They're just taking the numbers from the game, and making sure they're in the right columns.

 

That may sound phenomenally boring to you, but, that's what it is.