Underinflated footballs ... woq

strange.

so someone explain this to me....
Since the Pats dont control which ball goes into the game at any given moment, and the under inflated ball is a good thing for both teams .... then how did the Pats have an advantage over the Colts? The only thing I can think of is if the Pats were passing 90% of the time and the Colts were running.

In old Giants Stadium by opening and closing the tunnel doors? That was fun, wasn't it?

they can create? I'm sure they do.....

The Pats have created their own Scarlet Letter on themselves, with Spygate....every time they win, they must have cheated....Look how they circumvent the rules by splitting out ineligible receivers out there at the last second against the Ravens......BB must be rewriting the rule book....

Would weather have an affect? sure...anyone with TPM system on their cars, look at the pressure in your tires first thing on cold mornings....they are lower in pressure, and rise with temp....fact some were lower than others, could just mean that the others could have been overinflated...

Funny, that a linebacker would notice this and that the center and A. Luck didn't......or are they saying, that the Colts only were given the few high pressured balls, and the Pats were given only the lower pressured balls?

I would be checking the thigh pads/shoulder pads of Blount on the Pats too....must have had flubber in there, the way the Colts were bouncing off him, and not making those tackles......there has to be some explanation why the Pats have trounced the Colts four straight times, the exact same way.....I mean, come on, the Ravens were crushed by the Colts.....the Pats just about edged the Ravens....ergo, the Colts should easily beat the Pats....it's a fact....

In comment 12103437 EricJ said:

Quote:

so someone explain this to me.... Since the Pats dont control which ball goes into the game at any given moment, and the under inflated ball is a good thing for both teams .... then how did the Pats have an advantage over the Colts? The only thing I can think of is if the Pats were passing 90% of the time and the Colts were running.

This has nothing to do with the score. And in a wet game where Blount had 30 carries, holding onto a smaller ball is an advantage.

each team uses their own balls when they are on offense. The Colts only noticed it when they got their hands on a Pats ball by way of interception.

It was 51 degrees at game time. To lose 20 percent of the air would require severe cold. The only reasonable explanation is that this was an intentional act.

if this if underinflating balls for only the home team to gain an advantage is "OK" since everybody does it and (in hindsight) wasn't a big factor in deciding the game, what other written NFL rules are OK to break to give a team an advantage?

each team supplies their own balls, so the Colts could have done the same.

advantage, and that Brady might not throw as well if the ball were inflated to regulation? I'm having a hard time seeing it myself; if it were just the Colts, wouldn't they know something was off with their ball (there's a noticeable difference in feel between the two PSI)? Have to think that the whole idea here is that the Pats wanted to use an 11 PSI ball and had to keep them all at that pressure to get away with it.

maybe the Colts could have kept the margin within 30.

In comment 12103468 tribs said:

Quote:

if this if underinflating balls for only the home team to gain an advantage is "OK" since everybody does it and (in hindsight) wasn't a big factor in deciding the game, what other written NFL rules are OK to break to give a team an advantage?

Opening doors to change wind patterns during FG attempts...

written rule that the Gianta violated by opening and closing the door. The weight of the ball is proscribed in the rules.

You take away all the points scored by the patriots in the game using a ball. You then determine the winner of the game using the adjusted score, which I believe would be 7-0.

Congratulations Colts, you are the AFC Champions!

In comment 12103471 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

each team supplies their own balls, so the Colts could have done the same.

Yeah I should have wrote "one" team, not "home" team.

Pats will just say they broke out new balls and never tested them. The refs checked them and held them to game time. Unless the NFL has video of the Pats deflating balls on the sidelines, nothing will happen to Pats.

doesn't control the game balls itself. It controls every thing else down to how much sock has to be showing.

if each team supplies 12 balls
AND the home team supplies 12 backups

would like to see if the backups/home team pressure matched

In comment 12103495 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

doesn't control the game balls itself. It controls every thing else down to how much sock has to be showing.

Well, we know that is going to change come next season. My guess is that they will continue to allow the teams to provide the balls, but once the balls are inspected by the refs, they will remain under the NFL's control (rather than the team) until the end of the game.

Maybe Bradys hands are smaller or his grip is different enough that it is a Pats advantage. Like the Giants opening closing doors at the old stadium, its all part of the game. Bend the rules till they tell you no. At least its not the dirty play that the Harbaugh's and Detroit coach up.

The Pats could have used an actual brick instead of a football on Sunday and still won by 3 scores. They fucking ragdolled the Colts just like they've been doing pretty consistently for the last 10 years.

If I really thought it had effected the outcome of the game, I'd care more. We all know it didn't.

is really, really important and they are handled and checked closely before game time it is obvious the league doesn't trust the teams to do the right thing. But when the game starts they hand the balls off to home team employees for safekeepings? Maybe the 'ball attendants' should work for the league.

In comment 12103507 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The Pats could have used an actual brick instead of a football on Sunday and still won by 3 scores. They fucking ragdolled the Colts just like they've been doing pretty consistently for the last 10 years. If I really thought it had effected the outcome of the game, I'd care more. We all know it didn't.

Agreed. Much ado about nothing.

and I really don't care either way. But it is becoming tiresome how much stuff they either get caught for or are accused of. You'd think the Jets would be doing stuff like this, not the best team in football over the last 15 years. Its just weird and while there is no punishment that they can realistically give that would make sense, the league doing nothing would be a slap in the face to those who hold up their end of the integrity bargain.

This is all about integrity, not winning or losing.

How about just ripping this foolish rule out of the over inflated rule book. Why not just have the manufacturer make NFL balls to a prescribed inflation that can't be altered and supply the balls to the game officials. Geeesch

In comment 12103510 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 12103507 arcarsenal said: Quote: The Pats could have used an actual brick instead of a football on Sunday and still won by 3 scores. They fucking ragdolled the Colts just like they've been doing pretty consistently for the last 10 years. If I really thought it had effected the outcome of the game, I'd care more. We all know it didn't. Agreed. Much ado about nothing.

So it's OK to cheat as long as you blow the other team out? Got it.

Bob Papa retweeted
Johnette Howard 21 minutes ago
Bucs QB Johnson admits he paid to have footballs altered before Super Bowl 37

"I paid some guys off to get the balls right," Johnson now admits. "I went and got all 100 footballs, and they took care of all of them."

How much did it cost Johnson? "Seventy-five hundred (dollars)," he said.

"They took care of them."

Johnson made the revelation several years ago, proir to the 10-year reunion of the Bucs' Super Bowl champion team.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12103510 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 12103507 arcarsenal said: Quote: The Pats could have used an actual brick instead of a football on Sunday and still won by 3 scores. They fucking ragdolled the Colts just like they've been doing pretty consistently for the last 10 years. If I really thought it had effected the outcome of the game, I'd care more. We all know it didn't. Agreed. Much ado about nothing.

I cannot agree that intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is much ado about nothing. Whether they actually needed the advantage is irrelevant. Getting away with it just encourages more cheating, and then someone has to decide when its flagrant enough to warrant penalties?

I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'm fairly confident in saying this is not the first time a team has done this. It's just the first time someone got caught.

But teams are looking to gain competitive advantages in any way possible. This isn't unique to the Patriots. I know because of Spygate, everyone is inclined to think they're the only team that ever does anything questionable but I'm sure that's not the case.

a faulty pressure gauge, those things need to be calibrated sometimes and maybe the guy who inflated the balls for the Pats just had a gauge that read 2psi higher than reality?

First, why didn�t the officials notice that the balls were underinflated?

Second, what does a ball that is underinflated by two pounds per square inch feel like?

Third, were the balls properly tested before the game?

Fourth, how big of a factor was the weather?

Fifth, how was the chain of custody maintained?

Sixth, how widespread is the practice?

Seventh, should the NFL want pristine, fully-inflated footballs?
Link - ( New Window )

would the league do to a player who broke the rules (cheated) in order to gain an unfair advantage? And how would that penalty be increased if the player was a repeat offender?

In comment 12103527 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

But teams are looking to gain competitive advantages in any way possible. This isn't unique to the Patriots. I know because of Spygate, everyone is inclined to think they're the only team that ever does anything questionable but I'm sure that's not the case.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment - it's that the Pats likely work the fringe between acceptable and illegal harder than any other team, and when you have the kind of sustained success that they've had, it raises additional questions when something like this happens.

Quote:

If New England was to be DQ'd.. We'd be their replacements right??... I should probably lay off these strawberry margs

Link - ( New Window )

Should be suspended, but this is the second pretty big scandal where they have been caught cheating. They should definitely lose more draft picks then they did for Spygate. Including the 1st rounder.

Bill knew this could be the last run with Brady at QB so he probably said fuck it I'll lose a draft pick or two to win one more Super Bowl.

In comment 12103525 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

I've got a bridge to sell you. I'm fairly confident in saying this is not the first time a team has done this. It's just the first time someone got caught.

I don't. And if the game was 24-21 Pats im guessing you would care more. The score doesn't matter though, because they broke a rule anyway you slice it.

"Wow. I'm really surprised the Patriots would do something like that." -- Nobody.

but I would hope the NFL tested these balls at the same temperature that they were tested at prior to the game.

It's a relatively simple formula to calculate- just need the temperature it was initially measured at and the temperature the second readings were taken at.

If the difference was relatively large, that could account for it.

No idea if the PSI's were taken in the locker room or on the field. One would think if they were taken in the locker room the temperature would have been constant.

I see it's been talked about.

Is there any confirmation that the balls the Colts had remained constant?

BB for the SB....and a 1st rd pick in the draft...

That would be fair

Probably Brady paid to have the balls altered and now Bill has to take the fall - LOL - this will be Bill's legacy when he is inducted 1st ballot to HOF - rule bender.

Has taken advantage of these sitters:
The Pats have a lot of balls
Being kicked in the balls
Things getting blown out of proportion
The Colts were deflated.

But seriously, in the past it was the kickers who wanted their "special older balls" because they were easier to kick than new balls.

Question: would an under inflated ball be easier to grip if you have smaller hand? Would that be an advantage for Brady?

How does anybody know that Luck didn't pay to have the balls altered - answer me that - LOL

In comment 12103572 Marty in Albany said:

Quote:

Has taken advantage of these sitters: The Pats have a lot of balls Being kicked in the balls Things getting blown out of proportion The Colts were deflated. But seriously, in the past it was the kickers who wanted their "special older balls" because they were easier to kick than new balls. Question: would an under inflated ball be easier to grip if you have smaller hand? Would that be an advantage for Brady?

We deflated ours in HS for both our QB and kicker. I honestly thought it was legal. Certainly it is a common practice from my experience.

They are already covering it up.

But, how important could the inflation of the ball be if the NFL doesn't supply the game balls for both teams?

It really can't matter that much.

I think Bill does need to be suspended. If not he's gonna think he can keep getting away with this kind of stuff.

In comment 12103372 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

the indignation over this one. The fact that there are K balls says that teams would fuck with those balls. Teams fuck with these balls. This is like stealing signals. It's bad form, but lots of teams do it...

Maybe so, CiP, but we heard the same thing with Spygate - everyone does it. So, then, why is it the Patriots are always the ones getting caught?

I've never heard of other teams complaining about underinflated footballs, and now we have 2 very recent examples. I've never heard a ref replace a K ball in the middle of a series, but we heard it Sunday.

Where there' is smoke, there is often fire, and there always seems to be a lot of smoke around the Pats. Until I hear concrete evidence that other teams do it, I'm not going to believe the "every team does it' canard.

Clearly, if there were underinflated footballs, it didn't change the result of Sunday's game. However, if they were doing it to Baltimore, maybe it did make a difference.

In comment 12103606 Section331 said:

Quote:

In comment 12103372 Chris in Philly said: Quote: the indignation over this one. The fact that there are K balls says that teams would fuck with those balls. Teams fuck with these balls. This is like stealing signals. It's bad form, but lots of teams do it... Maybe so, CiP, but we heard the same thing with Spygate - everyone does it. So, then, why is it the Patriots are always the ones getting caught? I've never heard of other teams complaining about underinflated footballs, and now we have 2 very recent examples. I've never heard a ref replace a K ball in the middle of a series, but we heard it Sunday. Where there' is smoke, there is often fire, and there always seems to be a lot of smoke around the Pats. Until I hear concrete evidence that other teams do it, I'm not going to believe the "every team does it' canard. Clearly, if there were underinflated footballs, it didn't change the result of Sunday's game. However, if they were doing it to Baltimore, maybe it did make a difference.

Brad Johnson admitted to paying off someone to do it for their Super Bowl against the Raiders.

Just providing the example...just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.

to scuff balls. Is there a league specification to the proper amount of scuffing a ball should have or is allowed to have?

Quote:

Johnson, whose Buccaneers beat the Raiders at Super Bowl XXXVII, said he paid $7,500 to some people he did not identify so that they would scuff the balls set to be used in the Super Bowl, making them easier to grip. According to Johnson, there were 100 footballs set aside for the game, and the people he bribed tampered with all 100, to Johnson�s specifications.