VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
341
Your opinion that it's insignficant, in the face of people who actually played the game professionally saying otherwise, isn't a substantive argument. It's willful blindness. I'll take their opinion over yours any day.

And how do you know it hasn't been an issue in 77 years? Who knows how many times the refs have had to check the balls before the game and air them up, or deflate them? Just cause you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Percentage of fans who haven't heard of the rule is irrelevant. There's probably hundreds of laws or legal theory that I'm sure you've never heard of either. Doesn't mean they don't exist or are insignificant.

It's all opinion based, peppy. All of it. You're just choosing the one you like, while pretending to have a substantive argument. Because the guy who caught the ball, as well as his TE team-mate, as well as other pro quarterbacks have given opinions contrary to yours. And they're just as professional as the guys you agree with. Sure the rule is there, the importance of the effect of a slightly deflated ball, to the point a lynch mob has gathered is what's in question.

I'm not the only one arguing here, and if you didn't feel like arguing, then you would quit.

I was really referring to your odd-ball attitude more than the simple idea of talking back and forth.
 

cockstrong

UDFA
Messages
1,927
Reaction score
0
Its already been proven it wasn't PI

I said all along I didn't believe it was PI, and that the only thing that could have been called is illegal contact or defensive holding. There is a big difference.

But keep spewing ignorance if you like.

So its first down in Dallas territory
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
It's all opinion based, peppy. All of it. You're just choosing the one you like, while pretending to have a substantive argument.
It's not ALL opinion based. There are plenty of facts out there that back my opinion that every sport has regulations on the ball, puck, whatever is used... There is the fact that the footballs in this circumstance were underinflated, and the fact that it is in violation of the regulations of the NFL. There is the fact that NFL refs have protocols to enforce the rule. There is the fact that the NFL is investigating. These facts back my opinion that the rule is not insignificant, nor is it some blue law that is unenforced. Your argument is solely based on your opinion that it's micromanaging to have such rules and protocols in place. And there's really no fact that backs that up.

Because the guy who caught the ball, as well as his TE team-mate, as well as other pro quarterbacks have given opinions contrary to yours. And they're just as professional as the guys you agree with.
Jackson and Allen haven't said anything contrary to my opinion. They have said they didn't think the condition of the footballs caused the outcome of the game to be any different. That's something I've admitted, and pointed out as a strawman. As far the "other pro QBs," you're going to have to specify which QBs before I can comment on what they've said... perhaps a link to their comments, because as we can see from your interpretation of Jackson and Allen's comments, you're doing it wrong.

Sure the rule is there, the importance of the effect of a slightly deflated ball, to the point a lynch mob has gathered is what's in question.
No, that's the strawman. How many times are you gonna go back to that well before you realize it's dry?
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
341
I'm clearly saying this whole rhubarb over a ticky-tack obscure rule is silly. Based on the practical application of the fact that it doesn't even affect the outcome of the game. Former and current players agree. Yes it's a rule, gotcha, we all see that. People are whining over the principal, not any tangible effect it can have.

The NFL is investigating because it has to or else be cast in a bad light in the face of a whining accusation. It's never before been an issue needing an 'investigation', which I find impossible that in 77 years no balls have been under-inflated.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
not any tangible effect it can have.
I think there is. First off let's all agree Belechick wouldn't do anything that didn't give his team a competitive edge. There has to be a payoff, a reason for doing it. And I think I know what it is.

The Patriots practice with the balls slightly under-inflated, so the receivers get used to the ball being a little squishy. It's alot easier to throw a squishy football, not so easy to catch it. Remember your first experiences with the Nerf, when it first came out? Easy to throw accurately, Bitch to catch. Until you got used to it.

Well, lookie here - we always thought Brady was just lucky when defenders would inexplicably drop sure interceptions. And it happens all the time. But it ain't luck - the defenders drop the squishy footballs! Manufactured interception fail equals competitive edge equals the reason why we make the footballs a little squishy. We can catch them, you probably can't.

Motive. Something to think about.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,013
Reaction score
2,097
The Pats are also scary good at not fumbling, which is easier to pull off if you can secure the ball better. Hey, maybe that's the solution to Murray's troubles.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
The Pats are also scary good at not fumbling, which is easier to pull off if you can secure the ball better.
This too.

We can control our football better than you can.

I think we're on to something.
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
341
Those are all good points, especially the ability to avoid fumbles by under-inflation.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
It's something to think about, anyway. If they cheated, there's gotta be a payoff. They don't cheat just for the sake of cheating. For the thrill of it.

I think I know HOW they did it too.

PV=nRT - The "Ideal Gas Law." You would need a drop of over 80 degrees to get a 2 psi drop in a 12.5 psi football. That's the physics of the matter. Thus, the only possible explanation that removes tampering after the fact requires tampering before the original pressure check. So....

They used a air dryer on their compressed air source. Air dryers are commonly used on larger air compressor systems to assure there's no moisture in the compressed air supply - BUT they also greatly heat the air in the process. A air dryer is just a heat pump, after all. And they make, nifty portable ones....

IF the Patriots filled the balls with air that was heated to 120 degrees, and you filled the footballs to the lower PSI limit of the rules, then the pressure would naturally drop to around 10.5 psi after some time of exposure to the 50 degree and falling, air in the outdoor stadium. This is how they passed pre game inspection.

By the time they go to use them, they're squishy as ordered and consistent - without anyone having to let any air out of them and risk getting caught at it.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I'm clearly saying this whole rhubarb over a ticky-tack obscure rule is silly. Based on the practical application of the fact that it doesn't even affect the outcome of the game. Former and current players agree. Yes it's a rule, gotcha, we all see that. People are whining over the principal, not any tangible effect it can have.

The NFL is investigating because it has to or else be cast in a bad light in the face of a whining accusation. It's never before been an issue needing an 'investigation', which I find impossible that in 77 years no balls have been under-inflated.
Most people agree it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Championship game... not that it hasn't affected any other game or won't affect any game in the future. The fact that games are often decided on the outcome of one play completely eradicates any notion that the application of a rule on the state of the football for the entire game is ticky-tack.

I don't know what has or hasn't been investigated in 77 years. Hell, I don't even know why you keep referring to 77 years. But it doesn't seem impossible that with refs checking the balls before every game, that, you know, teams play within the rules without having to have an investigation. I don't remember any spying investigations either before the Pats got investigated for that a few years back. Doesn't mean that it's never happened.... also doesn't mean that the enforcement of "no spying" of other teams was ticky-tack.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Those are all good points, especially the ability to avoid fumbles by under-inflation.
Well hallelujah. Two days ago you apparently didn't think it was a good point when I made it. I guess you're coming around after all.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
It's something to think about, anyway. If they cheated, there's gotta be a payoff. They don't cheat just for the sake of cheating. For the thrill of it.

I think I know HOW they did it too.

PV=nRT - The "Ideal Gas Law." You would need a drop of over 80 degrees to get a 2 psi drop in a 12.5 psi football. That's the physics of the matter. Thus, the only possible explanation that removes tampering after the fact requires tampering before the original pressure check. So....

They used a air dryer on their compressed air source. Air dryers are commonly used on larger air compressor systems to assure there's no moisture in the compressed air supply - BUT they also greatly heat the air in the process. A air dryer is just a heat pump, after all. And they make, nifty portable ones....

IF the Patriots filled the balls with air that was heated to 120 degrees, and you filled the footballs to the lower PSI limit of the rules, then the pressure would naturally drop to around 10.5 psi after some time of exposure to the 50 degree and falling, air in the outdoor stadium. This is how they passed pre game inspection.

By the time they go to use them, they're squishy as ordered and consistent - without anyone having to let any air out of them and risk getting caught at it.

I don't know the physics of the matter, but I don't doubt that they're doing something intricate like this. I would seriously doubt that they're sneaking needles into footballs on the sidelines. Gotta have that plausible deniability.
 

cockstrong

UDFA
Messages
1,927
Reaction score
0
The Pats are also scary good at not fumbling, which is easier to pull off if you can secure the ball better. Hey, maybe that's the solution to Murray's troubles.

Just saw a stat that during a recent 5 year term. The Pats have the ALL TIME lowest fumble to plays in league history
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
341
Well hallelujah. Two days ago you apparently didn't think it was a good point when I made it. I guess you're coming around after all.

Well they are good points. I hadn't thought specifically about grabbing a softer ball to avoid fumbling. Pitch and catch seems a negligible advantage by one pound of pressure. And 77 years is from the date of the rule you posted to today. I'd never heard of this being an issue, and I'm sure it's happened. Referee enforcement certainly doesn't insure face-masking, holding, and a host of other rules aren't broken, so I'd have a hard time believing an under-inflated football has not occurred in that time.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
I don't know the physics of the matter, but I don't doubt that they're doing something intricate like this. I would seriously doubt that they're sneaking needles into footballs on the sidelines. Gotta have that plausible deniability.
And of course it doesn't matter how you heat the air. Could be as simple as a electric blanket wrapped around a portable air tank.

This method of using hot air isn't intricate though. In fact it's more simple to accomplish than random needling. We know from physical law that the air needs to be X temp to get X pressure drop at X expected lower temp vs. time. So it's nothing to look at the expected temp outside and tell your ball boy we need the air in the tank to be X degrees, and fill the footballs to 12.5 psi.

Hell, the ballboy might not even know about this. Equipment manager might be supplying the tank.
Just saw a stat that during a recent 5 year term. The Pats have the ALL TIME lowest fumble to plays in league history
Ain't that interesting. Wonder if there's a stat for dropped interceptions.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Well they are good points. I hadn't thought specifically about grabbing a softer ball to avoid fumbling. Pitch and catch seems a negligible advantage by one pound of pressure. And 77 years is from the date of the rule you posted to today. I'd never heard of this being an issue, and I'm sure it's happened. Referee enforcement certainly doesn't insure face-masking, holding, and a host of other rules aren't broken, so I'd have a hard time believing an under-inflated football has not occurred in that time.
It's been 76 years since 1939, and I would bet that's not the first year that was in the rule book.

And dude... there's a huge difference between penalties that happen during the game in a spontaneous environment going against other players, and rules violations that occur outside the game in controlled environments where you don't have an person going against you affecting your performance. That's like comparing facemasks to having an NFL compliant uniform. The only person responsible for the uniform is the player wearing it... and one team only has effect on the footballs they bring to the refs.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Did NFL run sting operation on Patriots to trigger deflate-gate?

Forget all about the most debated topics that have stemmed from the New England Patriots' use of deflated footballs in the AFC championship game – did Tom Brady order it, did Bill Belichick know about it, is Bill Nye the Science Guy even a scientist?

The question that has clues but no conclusion, the one that could prove to be the biggest and most historic of them all is this:

Did the NFL run a sting operation on the Patriots?

And if so, shouldn't the Indianapolis Colts, and the rest of the league, be more upset about the league's investigative tactics than anything New England has been accused of doing?

Reports have emerged during the past week that NFL teams, including the Colts, complained during the regular season and perhaps playoffs about the Patriots using underinflated footballs. Fox Sports' Jay Glazer reported that in response to those complaints, the league always planned on checking New England's footballs at halftime. ESPN's Ed Werder reiterated that suggestion on Twitter on Sunday.

Ed Werder @Edwerderespn

When told of suspected cheating by #Pats, #NFL tried to catch them in act rather than reminding them of rules. Is something wrong with that?

If so then the NFL was willing to let New England use a deflated football to its advantage for the first half of a game with the Super Bowl on the line, rather than stop the contest immediately and check, or even just warn the Patriots of their concerns prior to kickoff to make sure everything was fair and square for all 60 minutes.

This would be … astounding.

More astounding than if it was definitively proven that Brady himself took the air out of the ball. Competitors have sought advantages ever since there has been competition. A player working the equipment over for an edge is nothing new. A league letting it happen, letting one guy break the rules because it was trying to play cops and robbers would be a whole new twist.

So is it true?

Officially, the league has only said, "the investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules."

No details on when that suggestion occurred.

Yahoo Sports asked the league Sunday what prompted the decision to check the footballs at halftime, whether media reports of a preplanned test were accurate and if they were, why the league wouldn't be concerned over knowingly compromising the competitive balance of the AFC title game.

The NFL declined additional comment or clarification on all items.

It's essentially allowing the speculation from Glazer's report to continue, no matter how bad it makes the league look. And, it's worth noting, at this point Glazer's reporting carries more credibility among many football fans than an official NFL statement.

Still, this would be so absurd, so over-the-top that it's a challenge to believe even an NFL prone to bumbling would stoop to it.

The Patriots led 17-7 at halftime, after using some of the deflated footballs. This wasn't a prohibitive deficit but it was a significant advantage. New England has won 74 consecutive regular-season home games when leading at the half.

It actually played better offensively in the second half with properly inflated footballs (the Patriots wound up winning 45-7). Patriots fans point out that it proves the pounds per square inch inside footballs isn't a big deal. Perhaps, but the NFL believes this rule, and the reasoning behind it, is a big deal or else the Super Bowl wouldn't be consumed with a) the original investigation and b) a leak to ESPN that 11 footballs failed the PSI test, which blew this entire thing into a huge story by implying the Patriots were guilty.

As for letting New England walk into a trap, what if the Pats led 35-0 at the half? What if the game was out of hand and Indy was left all but hopeless? Or what if it ended close and every play, including first-quarter scores, mattered?

All that to catch a deflated football scheme? Could the NFL have cared more about that than the Colts' chances?

This is a review that may yield nothing more than a fine or a lost draft pick, and one that is so slow moving that Tom Brady said he doesn't expect to speak to investigators until after the Super Bowl.

Again, it's almost unfathomable. Almost.

Early reports suggested Indianapolis alerted the league of the issue after a second-quarter interception by D'Qwell Jackson, who gave a Patriots football to a Colts equipment man who, in turn, noticed a problem. Jackson has since told NFL.com he noticed nothing wrong. There's been no word from the equipment guy. Of course, that scenario could have happened and the NFL still could've been waiting for halftime to check the footballs. They aren't mutually exclusive.

If the NFL wanted to employ such an aggressive investigative tactic, then why wouldn't it do it earlier, such as the Patriots' pointless Week 17 game against the Buffalo Bills that they all but lost on purpose? That would've been preferable.

It's possible the NFL did that and found nothing. It's possible they did it against Baltimore in the divisional round too and found nothing. It's possible Baltimore was the first complaint and thus the AFC title game was the first chance. Who knows?

What we do know is that hanging out there, without response from the league, are multiple reports that the halftime testing was part of a strange pseudo set-up and not something that just occurred; that a league so obsessed with this particular part of maintaining competitive integrity was willing to compromise the competitive integrity of a league championship game.

Bizarre. Completely bizarre.

But not refuted, which the NFL could do with a simple clarification of what prompted the investigation. It wouldn't seem to alter the central effort of its investigation, which the league says is to "determine the explanation for why footballs used in the game were not in compliance with the playing rules and specifically whether any noncompliance was the result of deliberate action."

Yet the NFL doesn't want to say.

So the speculation spins.

In the end is this going to be bigger than just a doctored football and will it be Roger Goodell, not Tom Brady, answering the most uncomfortable of allegations?
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
JayGlazer
@JayGlazer

Breaking news: sources tell @FOXSports the NFL has zeroed in on a locker room attendant w Patriots who allegedly took balls from officials locker room to another area on way to field. Sources say they have interviewed him and additionally have video. Still gauging if any wrong doing occurred with him but he is strong person of interest
 
Top Bottom