[Papa John]

I, for one, am not taking sides on this until more information is released by the NFL. The footballs were reinflated at halftime. They maintained their nominal air pressure through the second half. The NFL has told us this much.

There are several possible explanations, and I think it's kind of pointless to speculate.

On the other hand, even if the Patriots are found guilty, this is more like a speeding ticket than a felony. Fine them and move along.

My two cents.

[Papa John]

I, for one, am not taking sides on this until more information is released by the NFL. The footballs were reinflated at halftime. They maintained their nominal air pressure through the second half. The NFL has told us this much.

There are several possible explanations, and I think it's kind of pointless to speculate.

On the other hand, even if the Patriots are found guilty, this is more like a speeding ticket than a felony. Fine them and move along.

My two cents.

[stupac2]

Stupac, honestly, you don't see any intent here by the Patriots to skirt the rules?

No! At the beginning of the week I thought that was the parsimonious explanation, but as more information has come out it looks like they complied with the rules to the letter. Unless you think that Belichick is straight-up lying to us (which, whatever you think of him, would be unprecedented, and stupid because any attempt to alter the balls would certainly be caught by one of the zillions of cameras in the stadium) they told the refs to fill the balls to 12.5 and the refs did it. Additionally, every indication is that after that point the measured low pressures at halftime are explained by natural means.

Maybe you think that I'm letting my fandom get to me, but I'm not a blind homer and I think anyone who follows me on this board should know that. Whatever you think of me, I try my damnedest to keep my biases out of stuff like this, hence the thinking earlier this week that there was some attempt to skirt the rules). It's also kind of weird because, if I were offered a choice between Stanford being a perennial contender and the Pats being a perennial loser or vice versa, I'm taking the former every single time with no hesitation. I care way, way more about how well Stanford does. This whole "deflategate" thing just annoys me because, first, there's a lot of bad science happening around it, and second I find it discomfiting how many people blindly hate something that I like (which I guess I should just get over because it's just sports, but blah).

[stupac2]

Stupac, honestly, you don't see any intent here by the Patriots to skirt the rules?

No! At the beginning of the week I thought that was the parsimonious explanation, but as more information has come out it looks like they complied with the rules to the letter. Unless you think that Belichick is straight-up lying to us (which, whatever you think of him, would be unprecedented, and stupid because any attempt to alter the balls would certainly be caught by one of the zillions of cameras in the stadium) they told the refs to fill the balls to 12.5 and the refs did it. Additionally, every indication is that after that point the measured low pressures at halftime are explained by natural means.

Maybe you think that I'm letting my fandom get to me, but I'm not a blind homer and I think anyone who follows me on this board should know that. Whatever you think of me, I try my damnedest to keep my biases out of stuff like this, hence the thinking earlier this week that there was some attempt to skirt the rules). It's also kind of weird because, if I were offered a choice between Stanford being a perennial contender and the Pats being a perennial loser or vice versa, I'm taking the former every single time with no hesitation. I care way, way more about how well Stanford does. This whole "deflategate" thing just annoys me because, first, there's a lot of bad science happening around it, and second I find it discomfiting how many people blindly hate something that I like (which I guess I should just get over because it's just sports, but blah).

[dabigv13]

Nobody has enough information to make any actual judgement, so we'll just have to wait and see what the NFL finds out and decides to release to the public.

Seems (since we don't have the full story) that only the Patriots balls fell victim to these environmental factors, and then only in the first half before anyone was checking. Suspicious.

[dabigv13]

Nobody has enough information to make any actual judgement, so we'll just have to wait and see what the NFL finds out and decides to release to the public.

Seems (since we don't have the full story) that only the Patriots balls fell victim to these environmental factors, and then only in the first half before anyone was checking. Suspicious.

[stupac2]

Nobody has enough information to make any actual judgement, so we'll just have to wait and see what the NFL finds out and decides to release to the public.

Seems (since we don't have the full story) that only the Patriots balls fell victim to these environmental factors, and then only in the first half before anyone was checking. Suspicious.

That only seems suspicious because no one's actually gone and checked any other time. It would actually be more suspicious if balls WEREN'T out of spec at most late-season halftimes because the games are so cold. I haven't even heard if the Colts' balls were checked, for instance (and even then it's possible that they were at the high end of the scale to start with so wouldn't be as far below).

You're right that people should be withholding judgment until there are plenty of facts out there, but no one is. The Patriots were crucified right out of the gate and they shouldn't have been. And what I'm saying is that, with what we know right now, the parsimonious explanation is that the Patriots didn't do anything wrong. That could change based on what else comes down the line, but at this point I don't think it's likely.

[stupac2]

Nobody has enough information to make any actual judgement, so we'll just have to wait and see what the NFL finds out and decides to release to the public.

Seems (since we don't have the full story) that only the Patriots balls fell victim to these environmental factors, and then only in the first half before anyone was checking. Suspicious.

That only seems suspicious because no one's actually gone and checked any other time. It would actually be more suspicious if balls WEREN'T out of spec at most late-season halftimes because the games are so cold. I haven't even heard if the Colts' balls were checked, for instance (and even then it's possible that they were at the high end of the scale to start with so wouldn't be as far below).

You're right that people should be withholding judgment until there are plenty of facts out there, but no one is. The Patriots were crucified right out of the gate and they shouldn't have been. And what I'm saying is that, with what we know right now, the parsimonious explanation is that the Patriots didn't do anything wrong. That could change based on what else comes down the line, but at this point I don't think it's likely.

[dabigv13]

That only seems suspicious because no one's actually gone and checked any other time. It would actually be more suspicious if balls WEREN'T out of spec at most late-season halftimes because the games are so cold. I haven't even heard if the Colts' balls were checked, for instance (and even then it's possible that they were at the high end of the scale to start with so wouldn't be as far below).

Peter King (an NFL stooge, but at least he has good sources) reported that the Colts balls were tested.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/23/deflategat...bowl-xlix/

Supposing your supposition that the Colts balls were at 13.5 and environmental factors are responsible for an approximately 2PSI drop, the Colts balls would still have tested out of range. But they didn't. Also, the environmental factors which were present at the start of the game would presumably have not been too different from first half to second half, but once the balls were reinflated to the proper pressure, they maintained that pressure through the end of the game. Suspicious.

[dabigv13]

That only seems suspicious because no one's actually gone and checked any other time. It would actually be more suspicious if balls WEREN'T out of spec at most late-season halftimes because the games are so cold. I haven't even heard if the Colts' balls were checked, for instance (and even then it's possible that they were at the high end of the scale to start with so wouldn't be as far below).

Peter King (an NFL stooge, but at least he has good sources) reported that the Colts balls were tested.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/23/deflategat...bowl-xlix/

Supposing your supposition that the Colts balls were at 13.5 and environmental factors are responsible for an approximately 2PSI drop, the Colts balls would still have tested out of range. But they didn't. Also, the environmental factors which were present at the start of the game would presumably have not been too different from first half to second half, but once the balls were reinflated to the proper pressure, they maintained that pressure through the end of the game. Suspicious.

[stupac2]

It's way more complicated than that because this whole thing hinges on disequilibrium issues. What Belichick said, translated from his "I'm a genius at football but don't know anything about science" speak into my "I'm a professional scientist" speak, when the balls were first inflated to 12.5 PSI they weren't in equilibrium with the environment. That means we have no real idea what their equilibrium pressure should have been. We're similarly ignorant about the Colts' balls, because they've given us no information at all about their "break in" procedure. If their balls are in equilibrium when they're inflated, and they go higher into the range (closer to 13.5 PSI), then it wouldn't be surprising that they'd be WNL while they Pats' weren't.

This also comes up in further tests, because during halftime there certainly wasn't time for the balls to come into equilibrium with the locker room, especially because any testing likely happened quickly, since the refs need to get ready to actually officiate the game. (Also, to my point above, if the Pats' balls were tested first and the Colts' second, that could explain some of the difference there.) But after the game, who knows when the test occurred? If they brought the balls inside then waited two hours they'd be back into equilibrium and you'd never see anything.

There could also be storage issues. No one has said anything about how the balls are stored on the sidelines, but if the Colts load them into a storage box (or something) and keep them inside there and dry, they could be less sensitive to the environment. If the Patriots keep theirs outside and wet (not like in a pool, it was raining), they'd be more sensitive. This variable is completely unaccounted for. Oh, and also we know it was 50 degrees at kickoff, but it was colder at halftime and it was raining, my guess is that rain is typically colder than surface air temperatures since it originates higher in the atmosphere, and since the balls are wet that would potentially cool them down more (and, again, if the Colts keep theirs dry on the sidelines that could explain some difference).

No one has released a timeline that's anywhere near detailed enough for us to be able to say anything definitively. King's confidence in his conclusion there is just a testament to his ignorance about the actual science involved here, which is fair because, as I said earlier, even I was thrown off by this at first. If you think there's enough here to be suspicious, that's fine, but the information that is currently available is not significantly different from the null hypothesis here (the null being that there was no untoward behavior).

[stupac2]

It's way more complicated than that because this whole thing hinges on disequilibrium issues. What Belichick said, translated from his "I'm a genius at football but don't know anything about science" speak into my "I'm a professional scientist" speak, when the balls were first inflated to 12.5 PSI they weren't in equilibrium with the environment. That means we have no real idea what their equilibrium pressure should have been. We're similarly ignorant about the Colts' balls, because they've given us no information at all about their "break in" procedure. If their balls are in equilibrium when they're inflated, and they go higher into the range (closer to 13.5 PSI), then it wouldn't be surprising that they'd be WNL while they Pats' weren't.

This also comes up in further tests, because during halftime there certainly wasn't time for the balls to come into equilibrium with the locker room, especially because any testing likely happened quickly, since the refs need to get ready to actually officiate the game. (Also, to my point above, if the Pats' balls were tested first and the Colts' second, that could explain some of the difference there.) But after the game, who knows when the test occurred? If they brought the balls inside then waited two hours they'd be back into equilibrium and you'd never see anything.

There could also be storage issues. No one has said anything about how the balls are stored on the sidelines, but if the Colts load them into a storage box (or something) and keep them inside there and dry, they could be less sensitive to the environment. If the Patriots keep theirs outside and wet (not like in a pool, it was raining), they'd be more sensitive. This variable is completely unaccounted for. Oh, and also we know it was 50 degrees at kickoff, but it was colder at halftime and it was raining, my guess is that rain is typically colder than surface air temperatures since it originates higher in the atmosphere, and since the balls are wet that would potentially cool them down more (and, again, if the Colts keep theirs dry on the sidelines that could explain some difference).

No one has released a timeline that's anywhere near detailed enough for us to be able to say anything definitively. King's confidence in his conclusion there is just a testament to his ignorance about the actual science involved here, which is fair because, as I said earlier, even I was thrown off by this at first. If you think there's enough here to be suspicious, that's fine, but the information that is currently available is not significantly different from the null hypothesis here (the null being that there was no untoward behavior).

[M T]

It would be interesting to know if the balls for kicking were also tested, and what those results were.  As for fumbling, it will be quite telling whether or not there is a change in the rate of fumbles next year.

I would think the practice of a team's playing with one set of footballs while the other plays with another set leads to potential abuses.  Suppose one team is able to roughen the surface of their footballs.  Suppose one team uses some chemical that has a melting point of 60F and clings to the interior surface in liquid form.  Suppose one team treats the balls in some way (microwave, etc.) so they are more deformable (easier to hold, etc.).

[M T]

It would be interesting to know if the balls for kicking were also tested, and what those results were.  As for fumbling, it will be quite telling whether or not there is a change in the rate of fumbles next year.

I would think the practice of a team's playing with one set of footballs while the other plays with another set leads to potential abuses.  Suppose one team is able to roughen the surface of their footballs.  Suppose one team uses some chemical that has a melting point of 60F and clings to the interior surface in liquid form.  Suppose one team treats the balls in some way (microwave, etc.) so they are more deformable (easier to hold, etc.).

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the correction.  Adding atmospheric pressure to the gauge pressure, I get an inflation temperature of 305.9 K, or 91 degrees F.  I doubt that they were inflated at that temperature but I suppose it is possible, especially if the Patriots were looking for a way to comply with the letter of the law but skirt the intent.

I think there is an easy way for the Pats to prove innocence here.  Inflate a dozen balls as per their normal protocol, test them to ensure they are at or above 12.5 psi, then store them at 50 degrees for several hours, and retest.  If they come out at 10.5 psi, then we have an explanation that does not involve post facto manipulation of the balls.  If they don't drop, then I would have a hard time conceiving of any explanation that didn't involve somebody letting air out.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the correction.  Adding atmospheric pressure to the gauge pressure, I get an inflation temperature of 305.9 K, or 91 degrees F.  I doubt that they were inflated at that temperature but I suppose it is possible, especially if the Patriots were looking for a way to comply with the letter of the law but skirt the intent.

I think there is an easy way for the Pats to prove innocence here.  Inflate a dozen balls as per their normal protocol, test them to ensure they are at or above 12.5 psi, then store them at 50 degrees for several hours, and retest.  If they come out at 10.5 psi, then we have an explanation that does not involve post facto manipulation of the balls.  If they don't drop, then I would have a hard time conceiving of any explanation that didn't involve somebody letting air out.

BC

[stupac2]

I think there is an easy way for the Pats to prove innocence here.  Inflate a dozen balls as per their normal protocol, test them to ensure they are at or above 12.5 psi, then store them at 50 degrees for several hours, and retest.  If they come out at 10.5 psi, then we have an explanation that does not involve post facto manipulation of the balls.  If they don't drop, then I would have a hard time conceiving of any explanation that didn't involve somebody letting air out.

...Are you joking here? They did pretty much exactly that:

“So we simulated a game-day situation in terms of the preparation of the footballs and where the balls [were] at various [points] in the day or night, as the case was Sunday. I would say that our preparation process for the footballs is what we do -- I can’t speak for anybody else, it’s what we do -- and that [preparation] process we have found raises the PSI approximately one pound [per square inch]. That process of creating a tackiness, a texture, the right feel, whatever that feel is, a sensation for the quarterback, that process elevates the PSI approximately one pound [per square inch] based on what our study showed, which was multiple footballs, multiple examples in the process as we would do for a game. It’s not one football.

“When the footballs are delivered to the officials’ locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 PSI, what exactly they did, I don’t know. But, for the purposes of our study, that’s what we did. We set them at 12.5 [PSI]. That’s at the discretion of the official regardless of what we ask for, it’s the official’s discretion to put them where he wants. Again, that’s done in a controlled climate. The footballs are prepared in our locker room. They are delivered to the officials’ locker room, which is a controlled environment. It’s whatever we have here, is what we have there.

“When the footballs go out onto the field into game conditions, whatever those conditions are, whether it’s hot and humid, cold and damp, cold and dry, whatever it is, that’s where the footballs are played with and that’s where the measurements would be different -- possibly different -- from what they are in a controlled environment and that’s what we found. We found that once the footballs were on the field over an extended period of time, in other words they were adjusted to the climatic conditions and also the fact that the footballs, which an equilibrium without the rubbing process after that had run its course and the footballs reached an equilibrium, that they were down approximately 1.5 pounds per square inch. When we brought the footballs back in after that process and retested them in a controlled environment as we have here, then those measurements rose approximately 0.5 PSI. So the net of 1.5 [PSI] back down 0.5 [PSI] is approximately 1 PSI.

“Now, we all know that air pressure is a function of the atmospheric conditions, it’s a function of that. So, if there’s activity in the ball relative to the rubbing process, I think that explains why when we gave them to the officials and the officials put it at 12.5 [PSI] if that’s in fact what they did, that once the ball reached its equilibrium state, it probably was closer to 11.5 [PSI]. That’s just our measurements, we can’t speak specifically to what happened because we have no way of touching the footballs other than once the officials have them, we don’t touch them except for when we play with them in the game. But, it’s similar to the concept of when you get into your car and the light comes on and it says low tire pressure because the car has been sitting in the driveway outside overnight and you start it up and you start driving it and the light goes off -- it’s a similar concept to that. So the atmospheric conditions as well as the true equilibrium of the football is critical to the measurement.

It's long, but everything they said fits with what we know. If the Pats pre-game preparation (whatever it is, he didn't detail it) raises the pressure by 1 PSI, then air is let out so it immediately reads 12.5, the actual internal pressure would be 11.5. When you then take it out into the cold, a presumably 20-25-degree drop on this night, it loses another 1 PSI and you get to 10.5. When you then fill those back up (as the officials presumably did, I don't honestly know exactly what they did at halftime) it'll measure within range after the game.

[stupac2]

I think there is an easy way for the Pats to prove innocence here.  Inflate a dozen balls as per their normal protocol, test them to ensure they are at or above 12.5 psi, then store them at 50 degrees for several hours, and retest.  If they come out at 10.5 psi, then we have an explanation that does not involve post facto manipulation of the balls.  If they don't drop, then I would have a hard time conceiving of any explanation that didn't involve somebody letting air out.

...Are you joking here? They did pretty much exactly that:

“So we simulated a game-day situation in terms of the preparation of the footballs and where the balls [were] at various [points] in the day or night, as the case was Sunday. I would say that our preparation process for the footballs is what we do -- I can’t speak for anybody else, it’s what we do -- and that [preparation] process we have found raises the PSI approximately one pound [per square inch]. That process of creating a tackiness, a texture, the right feel, whatever that feel is, a sensation for the quarterback, that process elevates the PSI approximately one pound [per square inch] based on what our study showed, which was multiple footballs, multiple examples in the process as we would do for a game. It’s not one football.

“When the footballs are delivered to the officials’ locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 PSI, what exactly they did, I don’t know. But, for the purposes of our study, that’s what we did. We set them at 12.5 [PSI]. That’s at the discretion of the official regardless of what we ask for, it’s the official’s discretion to put them where he wants. Again, that’s done in a controlled climate. The footballs are prepared in our locker room. They are delivered to the officials’ locker room, which is a controlled environment. It’s whatever we have here, is what we have there.

“When the footballs go out onto the field into game conditions, whatever those conditions are, whether it’s hot and humid, cold and damp, cold and dry, whatever it is, that’s where the footballs are played with and that’s where the measurements would be different -- possibly different -- from what they are in a controlled environment and that’s what we found. We found that once the footballs were on the field over an extended period of time, in other words they were adjusted to the climatic conditions and also the fact that the footballs, which an equilibrium without the rubbing process after that had run its course and the footballs reached an equilibrium, that they were down approximately 1.5 pounds per square inch. When we brought the footballs back in after that process and retested them in a controlled environment as we have here, then those measurements rose approximately 0.5 PSI. So the net of 1.5 [PSI] back down 0.5 [PSI] is approximately 1 PSI.

“Now, we all know that air pressure is a function of the atmospheric conditions, it’s a function of that. So, if there’s activity in the ball relative to the rubbing process, I think that explains why when we gave them to the officials and the officials put it at 12.5 [PSI] if that’s in fact what they did, that once the ball reached its equilibrium state, it probably was closer to 11.5 [PSI]. That’s just our measurements, we can’t speak specifically to what happened because we have no way of touching the footballs other than once the officials have them, we don’t touch them except for when we play with them in the game. But, it’s similar to the concept of when you get into your car and the light comes on and it says low tire pressure because the car has been sitting in the driveway outside overnight and you start it up and you start driving it and the light goes off -- it’s a similar concept to that. So the atmospheric conditions as well as the true equilibrium of the football is critical to the measurement.

It's long, but everything they said fits with what we know. If the Pats pre-game preparation (whatever it is, he didn't detail it) raises the pressure by 1 PSI, then air is let out so it immediately reads 12.5, the actual internal pressure would be 11.5. When you then take it out into the cold, a presumably 20-25-degree drop on this night, it loses another 1 PSI and you get to 10.5. When you then fill those back up (as the officials presumably did, I don't honestly know exactly what they did at halftime) it'll measure within range after the game.

[Leftcoast]

Anyone else amazed at the national outpouring of "Deflategate" emotion?  I certainly am - even though I've watched 30 years of internet moralizing and know the stock web emotion is outrage.  My guess is QBs all over the league are secretly laughing at this or telling their equipment manager to calibrate their air gauges for next year.

I'm no Patriot apologist but the ex-ballplayer in me can't work up a lick of outrage if Tom Brady throws 10.5 PSI balls instead of 12.5 PSI ones next Sunday.  I'd just hope those under inflated balls hit Richard Sherman squarely in the hands.  As a reluctant Seattle fan (due to Baldwin/Sherman edging out my 49er loyalties) the only PSI based emotion I carry is a strong preference that Sunday will be a "deflating" day for the Pats even if the footballs are fully blown up.

The actual game can't get here quickly enough for me.  The extra hype week is overblown with the puffed up drama of an 80s soaper that unfortunately runs on all channels. 

Can't we just play this thing tomorrow as a Monday Night Football bonus game?

[Leftcoast]

Anyone else amazed at the national outpouring of "Deflategate" emotion?  I certainly am - even though I've watched 30 years of internet moralizing and know the stock web emotion is outrage.  My guess is QBs all over the league are secretly laughing at this or telling their equipment manager to calibrate their air gauges for next year.

I'm no Patriot apologist but the ex-ballplayer in me can't work up a lick of outrage if Tom Brady throws 10.5 PSI balls instead of 12.5 PSI ones next Sunday.  I'd just hope those under inflated balls hit Richard Sherman squarely in the hands.  As a reluctant Seattle fan (due to Baldwin/Sherman edging out my 49er loyalties) the only PSI based emotion I carry is a strong preference that Sunday will be a "deflating" day for the Pats even if the footballs are fully blown up.

The actual game can't get here quickly enough for me.  The extra hype week is overblown with the puffed up drama of an 80s soaper that unfortunately runs on all channels. 

Can't we just play this thing tomorrow as a Monday Night Football bonus game?

[Mick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

I'm not a prosecutor, but I thought the point was to get the input of all the witnesses first, AND THEN go after the perpetrators, in order to use the witness testimony to pick apart that of the alleged guilty party.

[Mick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

I'm not a prosecutor, but I thought the point was to get the input of all the witnesses first, AND THEN go after the perpetrators, in order to use the witness testimony to pick apart that of the alleged guilty party.

[FarmBoy]

The average fan may not know how to calibrate the deflated balls issue vs other forms of cheating. Is it as bad as doctoring a baseball with resin or tar or whatever ball players use nowadays? When you hear some players equating it to PEDs, it makes you think this is more serious than a player choosing to wear golden cleats. On the face of it, it sounds pretty laughable, that it would be that serious an issue, but if really helps a QB increase their completion percentage by even a few points, that could change the course of a game or season.

I'll admit, my judgment in influenced by a fundamental dislike for the Pats as an organization, though mostly due to my experience with the fan base more than the team itself. And of course, I've been prewired by Kiffen's shenanigans to think only the lowest sort of football villains would result to such measures.

[FarmBoy]

The average fan may not know how to calibrate the deflated balls issue vs other forms of cheating. Is it as bad as doctoring a baseball with resin or tar or whatever ball players use nowadays? When you hear some players equating it to PEDs, it makes you think this is more serious than a player choosing to wear golden cleats. On the face of it, it sounds pretty laughable, that it would be that serious an issue, but if really helps a QB increase their completion percentage by even a few points, that could change the course of a game or season.

I'll admit, my judgment in influenced by a fundamental dislike for the Pats as an organization, though mostly due to my experience with the fan base more than the team itself. And of course, I've been prewired by Kiffen's shenanigans to think only the lowest sort of football villains would result to such measures.

[stupac2]

The average fan may not know how to calibrate the deflated balls issue vs other forms of cheating. Is it as bad as doctoring a baseball with resin or tar or whatever ball players use nowadays? When you hear some players equating it to PEDs, it makes you think this is more serious than a player choosing to wear golden cleats. On the face of it, it sounds pretty laughable, that it would be that serious an issue, but if really helps a QB increase their completion percentage by even a few points, that could change the course of a game or season.

I'll admit, my judgment in influenced by a fundamental dislike for the Pats as an organization, though mostly due to my experience with the fan base more than the team itself. And of course, I've been prewired by Kiffen's shenanigans to think only the lowest sort of football villains would result to such measures.

Sports Science did a segment that found that it wouldn't have any meaningful effect at all. Something like 1mm more grip, a few hundredths of a second slower arrival time, stuff like that. ESPN has since removed the segment, god only knows why.

[stupac2]

The average fan may not know how to calibrate the deflated balls issue vs other forms of cheating. Is it as bad as doctoring a baseball with resin or tar or whatever ball players use nowadays? When you hear some players equating it to PEDs, it makes you think this is more serious than a player choosing to wear golden cleats. On the face of it, it sounds pretty laughable, that it would be that serious an issue, but if really helps a QB increase their completion percentage by even a few points, that could change the course of a game or season.

I'll admit, my judgment in influenced by a fundamental dislike for the Pats as an organization, though mostly due to my experience with the fan base more than the team itself. And of course, I've been prewired by Kiffen's shenanigans to think only the lowest sort of football villains would result to such measures.

Sports Science did a segment that found that it wouldn't have any meaningful effect at all. Something like 1mm more grip, a few hundredths of a second slower arrival time, stuff like that. ESPN has since removed the segment, god only knows why.

[dabigv13]

It's a perceived advantage, and it's against the rules. To me the measurable effect it has on the game is not particularly relevant.

[dabigv13]

It's a perceived advantage, and it's against the rules. To me the measurable effect it has on the game is not particularly relevant.

[BostonCard]

No, that's what Belichek said that did. They need to do it in front of league officials.

BC

[BostonCard]

No, that's what Belichek said that did. They need to do it in front of league officials.

BC

[FarmBoy]

Sports Science

I always get a chuckle out of Sports Science segments, but would never put any weight behind their "findings". If they threw and tried to catch 1,000 footballs, half with 12.5 psi and half with 10.5 psi, in a range of conditions, then I might put some weight into the work. Until then, the fact that many QBs, including Brady, prefer a softer ball is enough evidence to me that there's a likely advantage. And my own experience of course, shows that catching a softer ball is easier than a harder one.

[FarmBoy]

Sports Science

I always get a chuckle out of Sports Science segments, but would never put any weight behind their "findings". If they threw and tried to catch 1,000 footballs, half with 12.5 psi and half with 10.5 psi, in a range of conditions, then I might put some weight into the work. Until then, the fact that many QBs, including Brady, prefer a softer ball is enough evidence to me that there's a likely advantage. And my own experience of course, shows that catching a softer ball is easier than a harder one.

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11574.msg111619#msg111619 date=1422070816]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

I'm not a prosecutor, but I thought the point was to get the input of all the witnesses first, AND THEN go after the perpetrators, in order to use the witness testimony to pick apart that of the alleged guilty party.
[/quote]

It depends on the issue.  If the investigator doesn't know enough to ask appropriate questions, information from other witnesses would be needed.  It is almost always better to speak to the suspect as early as possible to get them to commit to their story before they have time to think, confer with other witnesses or a lawyer, or to learn the things other witnesses have said.  Investigators shouldn't generally pick apart a suspect's statement unless it will help get more information or admissions.  The defendant is picked apart during the trial when they realize that their first story has holes in it and they change it for the trial.  That is why the proper legal advice for anyone accused of a crime is to say nothing even if you are truly not guilty.  Invoke your rights and let your lawyer tell the police the facts that clearly show that you are not guilty.  That's a freebie from a prosecutor to my friends here at the Cardboard!  :D

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11574.msg111619#msg111619 date=1422070816]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

I'm not a prosecutor, but I thought the point was to get the input of all the witnesses first, AND THEN go after the perpetrators, in order to use the witness testimony to pick apart that of the alleged guilty party.
[/quote]

It depends on the issue.  If the investigator doesn't know enough to ask appropriate questions, information from other witnesses would be needed.  It is almost always better to speak to the suspect as early as possible to get them to commit to their story before they have time to think, confer with other witnesses or a lawyer, or to learn the things other witnesses have said.  Investigators shouldn't generally pick apart a suspect's statement unless it will help get more information or admissions.  The defendant is picked apart during the trial when they realize that their first story has holes in it and they change it for the trial.  That is why the proper legal advice for anyone accused of a crime is to say nothing even if you are truly not guilty.  Invoke your rights and let your lawyer tell the police the facts that clearly show that you are not guilty.  That's a freebie from a prosecutor to my friends here at the Cardboard!  :D

Cheers,
Pete F.

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe other, more experienced media folks can contradict me, but I've always been under the impression that preferred procedure for the media is to wait until the *end* of an investigation to talk to your target. Of course, different institutions, different procedures, but that's just my impression.

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe other, more experienced media folks can contradict me, but I've always been under the impression that preferred procedure for the media is to wait until the *end* of an investigation to talk to your target. Of course, different institutions, different procedures, but that's just my impression.

[BostonCard]

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/defla...m:nflonfox

There is surveillance video showing the attendant taking the footballs from the official's locker room into another room at Gillette Stadium before bringing them out to the field, sources tell FOX Sports.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/defla...m:nflonfox

There is surveillance video showing the attendant taking the footballs from the official's locker room into another room at Gillette Stadium before bringing them out to the field, sources tell FOX Sports.

BC

[FarmBoy]

I love that just like us,c, some ball boy will take the blame. A low level employee will lose their job and while Bill and Tom fein ignorance. Actually, check thst, I hate that.

[FarmBoy]

I love that just like us,c, some ball boy will take the blame. A low level employee will lose their job and while Bill and Tom fein ignorance. Actually, check thst, I hate that.