But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
Said on the other fumble thread. BenJarvus Green Ellis had 5 fumbles once he played in Cincinnati. When he played for the Pats with slightly more touches he had zero!
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
RE: You know the most interesting thing to me..... Â
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
The Giants also record their opponent's signals, but instead of using a videographer, they have a guy in the stands describing the signals on audiotape. In other words, "stealing" signals isn't forbidden, it is only the use of recording them on video which is against the rules. Which in my mind, makes it a technical violation.
RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
RE: RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
Thank you! You have framed the real question. Were the consequences "unintended"
On a side note Bill Nye "the science guy" on GMA said "What he said didn't make any sense"
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
Sounded like he said they didn't do it on purpose, but that's the process they go through. Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
a) I don't know that it is "likely" that they knew the process they followed would drop the PSI below the allowable standard, because that presumes that PSI is something they paid attention to. Until it became an issue, why would they bother to measure the PSI themselves? That's the job of the officials. All Belichick cared about was that his QB was happy with the footballs and all Brady cared about was that it felt right.
b)Doing 65 in a 35 may get you a massive ticket, but doing 45 in a 35 gets you off with just a warning.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
The only way the balls could have dropped that much pressure was if they used heated air. there is no other scientific explanation if you take BB at his word that they never let air out. Of course this then would mean he lied in the presser when he claimed they do not attempt any sort of gamesmanship and would never try to circumvent the rules
RE: RE: RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Simple math Einstein, the odds of getting to the SB are 1 out of 16, the odds of them achieving almost double the rate of fumbles to carries for 7 straight years is something like 1 out of 16.5K.
On top of that the biggest variable to the fumble rate would be weather, one of the worse areas for weather is where the Pats play. The single biggest variable for getting to the Sb is the teams in your division. Pats play in one of the historically easiest football divisions.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
Anyone catch Heath Evans take on the NFL Network Â
Sometimes the science and even Bill's verbage [sic] was hard for me to follow. I'm listening to him and I'm thinking about the creation theory versus evolution. You've got a scientist that used the same science to prove creation as the other. You can have a same scientist who studied at the same school would say no, he's wrong and another one would say he's right.
...what? (That's the closed captioning transcript. If you follow along, you can see that the captioner tried to make sense of what Evans was saying, and then finally sort of gave up.)
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
I'm just giving examples of things that would qualify as statistical anomalies if all things were equal. But all things are not equal. So if you look inside the reasons why Belichick coached teams go to the Super Bowl at a rate outside of one standard deviation from the mean and you look at the reasons why Belichick coached teams fumble the ball so infrequently compared to the rest of the league and why Tiki Barber was able to reverse his history of fumbling, you will see that the explanation lies in superior coaching.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
I'm just giving examples of things that would qualify as statistical anomalies if all things were equal. But all things are not equal. So if you look inside the reasons why Belichick coached teams go to the Super Bowl at a rate outside of one standard deviation from the mean and you look at the reasons why Belichick coached teams fumble the ball so infrequently compared to the rest of the league and why Tiki Barber was able to reverse his history of fumbling, you will see that the explanation lies in superior coaching.
But Milton it does not qualify as even being remotely the same thing as this absurdly high carry to fumble rate they have. It is beyond "great coaching" which is what you use to point out their excellent record over the same time period
There is a difference between breaking the rules and cheating.. Â
Lots of people say this was cheating. When you cheat, you do something that gives you an advantage over your opponent.
Most of the ex-NFL players say this did not create an advantage for the Patriots. Therefore, IMO it is simply a rule violation.
Listen to this..
Yesterday, I saw the documentary on Bill Walsh. Did anyone ever accuse him of being a cheater? I don't think so. Meanwhile, do you know what he did vs the Giants TWICE?? He scripted their plays and had their players memorize them. So, the coach did not have to send the plays in. Then, right after kickoff, he claimed that their headsets (communication to the QB) were not working. This meant that the Giants also had to turn theirs off. Bill knew the Giants would not script their plays and would be at a disadvantage if they did not have the communications working.
So, after that second game Parcells said to Walsh.. "if your phones go out again, I am going to report what you are doing to the league". Walsh said it was just gamesmanship.
IMO, something like this is far worse than balls being one pound low.
how does having a ball that you are less likely to fumble Â
than your opponent NOT give you an advantage????
If the Pats intentionally change the pressure of the ball, its cheating.
And if they unintentionally changed it it's not. What's more important to a head coach, that his QB gets to throw a football that fits his personal preferences perfectly (try saying that three times fast) or that the football be inflated to a PCI that is ideal for ball security? If I'm the head coach and Tom Brady is my QB, I tell him to worry about nothing but what feels the most comfortable throwing.
And wasn't that the purpose of the 2006 change to begin with? To make it so that QB--who aren't all alike--each get the opportunity to break in the football to his liking. As long as it's a fully functioning football, why should it be one size fits all? Are all baseball players required to swing the same size bat or field the same size mitt? Are all tennis players required to play with the same size racket with the same stringing?
All QB's in the league were given the same opportunity to fashion the footballs to their liking, not just Tom Brady. I don't think any one of them gave a damn about how it would effect the likelihood of fumbles when they made their choices.
than your opponent NOT give you an advantage????
If the Pats intentionally change the pressure of the ball, its cheating.
And if they unintentionally changed it it's not. What's more important to a head coach, that his QB gets to throw a football that fits his personal preferences perfectly (try saying that three times fast) or that the football be inflated to a PCI that is ideal for ball security? If I'm the head coach and Tom Brady is my QB, I tell him to worry about nothing but what feels the most comfortable throwing.
And wasn't that the purpose of the 2006 change to begin with? To make it so that QB--who aren't all alike--each get the opportunity to break in the football to his liking. As long as it's a fully functioning football, why should it be one size fits all? Are all baseball players required to swing the same size bat or field the same size mitt? Are all tennis players required to play with the same size racket with the same stringing?
All QB's in the league were given the same opportunity to fashion the footballs to their liking, not just Tom Brady. I don't think any one of them gave a damn about how it would effect the likelihood of fumbles when they made their choices.
Your correct, the only problem that the Pats have though is that nothing can explain that much of a drastic drop in one half of football, other then a determined effort by them to ensure that drop happens.
I'm sorry, but I loved Belichick telling everyone to fuck off. Â
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
RE: There is no way a rub down would generate enough heat Â
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
Quote:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
RE: RE: There is no way a rub down would generate enough heat Â
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
Quote:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
I'm not seeing where the rule is clear on this unless I'm missing something.
as explained by Dr. Allen Sanderson, a research scientist at the University of Utah.
Sanderson told Tom Pelissero of USA Today that accelerated deflation will occur naturally if the balls are inflated while at a higher temperature.
"What everyone’s looking for is somebody to have physically altered the ball by letting air out,” Sanderson said.
"The NFL rules are very much ambiguous really because they’re not specifying a temperature. They’re just specifying a pressure, and temperature makes all the difference in the world about how you make that measurement." Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: There is no way a rub down would generate enough heat Â
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
Quote:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
I'm not seeing where the rule is clear on this unless I'm missing something.
as explained by Dr. Allen Sanderson, a research scientist at the University of Utah.
Sanderson told Tom Pelissero of USA Today that accelerated deflation will occur naturally if the balls are inflated while at a higher temperature.
"What everyone’s looking for is somebody to have physically altered the ball by letting air out,” Sanderson said.
"The NFL rules are very much ambiguous really because they’re not specifying a temperature. They’re just specifying a pressure, and temperature makes all the difference in the world about how you make that measurement." Link - ( New Window )
Right, but that pressure they are specifying is what the ball needs to be at for the game, not just for the pregame inspection. If the intent was to manipulate the ball to get by the initial inspection and then play at 2 lbs under the specified rule, that is still a violation of the rule.
I'm pretty sure that if the amount of deflation was 2 lbs, then the Â
The "temperature" theory would account for less than a pound of deflation. If they really were two pounds under as I'd seen initially reported.
PV=nRT
The temperature is measured in degrees kelvin. If they filled them at room temperature and they cooled to freezing, then it would be a half a pound. For them to have a 2 pound drop in pressure they'd have to be filled at a temperature of around 125 degrees. That doesn't seem likely.
On the other hand.
The most interesting thing he said in the presser was that they request the balls to be filled to a certain pressure by the official. It seems to me that it's hard to hold them responsible for the pressure if they don't actually do the inflation.
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Inherent in your comments is that all protocol was followed precisely by the NFL officials.
I have no idea why anybody would not think the problem is most likely with the NFL, not the Patriots. The NFL, especially under Goodell, should inspire little to no confidence...
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Is that a fact that the same temperature air was used for all 24 balls? I didn't see that stated anywhere. I asked this question on another thread on Friday but that thread just died after my last post. Who maintains custody of the balls prior to the pre-game inspection?
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Not saying the Pats didn't tamper with the balls, but you seem to omit that the NFL gives a "range" for acceptable PSI. We know the Pats like their balls at 12.5 PSI (or lower), but have the Colts specified the pressure they typically fill theirs too? If it's 13.5 PSI (I believe Rodgers said he likes it as firm as possible), then the Colts balls could've lost an entire pound of pressure and still been in the acceptable range.
the Patriots balls were two PSI below allowable levels, if the Patriots balls started at the higher end that would mean they lost even more PSI.
Keep trying.
I was explaining how the Pats balls could lose some pressure and be below the range, while the Colts balls could lose the same amount of pressure and still be within range.
Keep up! And has the NFL officially announced the pressure levels of the Pats balls? I know one was reportedly measured at 10.5 PSI, but I thought there was a report that the others were in the 11 PSI range.
It is borderline impossible to talk sense to some people. I live in NH and these guys can have mounds of evidence thrown in their face and the response is everyone is haters.
It is borderline impossible to talk sense to some people. I live in NH and these guys can have mounds of evidence thrown in their face and the response is everyone is haters.
I know, I live in MA and it's awful. They're clinging to shreds of science that don't apply interspersed with flat out lies.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
LOL!
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
Quote:
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Quote:
In comment 12108029 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Quote:
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
Thank you! You have framed the real question. Were the consequences "unintended"
On a side note Bill Nye "the science guy" on GMA said "What he said didn't make any sense"
Quote:
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
Sounded like he said they didn't do it on purpose, but that's the process they go through. Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
a) I don't know that it is "likely" that they knew the process they followed would drop the PSI below the allowable standard, because that presumes that PSI is something they paid attention to. Until it became an issue, why would they bother to measure the PSI themselves? That's the job of the officials. All Belichick cared about was that his QB was happy with the footballs and all Brady cared about was that it felt right.
b)Doing 65 in a 35 may get you a massive ticket, but doing 45 in a 35 gets you off with just a warning.
Quote:
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
The only way the balls could have dropped that much pressure was if they used heated air. there is no other scientific explanation if you take BB at his word that they never let air out. Of course this then would mean he lied in the presser when he claimed they do not attempt any sort of gamesmanship and would never try to circumvent the rules
Quote:
In comment 12108223 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 12108029 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Simple math Einstein, the odds of getting to the SB are 1 out of 16, the odds of them achieving almost double the rate of fumbles to carries for 7 straight years is something like 1 out of 16.5K.
On top of that the biggest variable to the fumble rate would be weather, one of the worse areas for weather is where the Pats play. The single biggest variable for getting to the Sb is the teams in your division. Pats play in one of the historically easiest football divisions.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
Quote:
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
...what? (That's the closed captioning transcript. If you follow along, you can see that the captioner tried to make sense of what Evans was saying, and then finally sort of gave up.)
link. - ( New Window )
the only question is what happens next.
we will get to watch their fumble/attempt rate next year and see if there is a correction.
I'm glad we're not in their division or conference. If I were a Steelers or Ravens fan I'd be sick to my stomach.
Quote:
Quote:
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
Gimme a break.
Everybody jumping on the Pats, really, are embarrassing themselves.
I don't care if they cheated, they beat the fucking Philadelphia Eagles, so there.
Quote:
In comment 12108437 Milton said:
Quote:
Quote:
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
I'm just giving examples of things that would qualify as statistical anomalies if all things were equal. But all things are not equal. So if you look inside the reasons why Belichick coached teams go to the Super Bowl at a rate outside of one standard deviation from the mean and you look at the reasons why Belichick coached teams fumble the ball so infrequently compared to the rest of the league and why Tiki Barber was able to reverse his history of fumbling, you will see that the explanation lies in superior coaching.
But Milton it does not qualify as even being remotely the same thing as this absurdly high carry to fumble rate they have. It is beyond "great coaching" which is what you use to point out their excellent record over the same time period
Most of the ex-NFL players say this did not create an advantage for the Patriots. Therefore, IMO it is simply a rule violation.
Listen to this..
Yesterday, I saw the documentary on Bill Walsh. Did anyone ever accuse him of being a cheater? I don't think so. Meanwhile, do you know what he did vs the Giants TWICE?? He scripted their plays and had their players memorize them. So, the coach did not have to send the plays in. Then, right after kickoff, he claimed that their headsets (communication to the QB) were not working. This meant that the Giants also had to turn theirs off. Bill knew the Giants would not script their plays and would be at a disadvantage if they did not have the communications working.
So, after that second game Parcells said to Walsh.. "if your phones go out again, I am going to report what you are doing to the league". Walsh said it was just gamesmanship.
IMO, something like this is far worse than balls being one pound low.
If the Pats intentionally change the pressure of the ball, its cheating.
If the Pats intentionally change the pressure of the ball, its cheating.
And wasn't that the purpose of the 2006 change to begin with? To make it so that QB--who aren't all alike--each get the opportunity to break in the football to his liking. As long as it's a fully functioning football, why should it be one size fits all? Are all baseball players required to swing the same size bat or field the same size mitt? Are all tennis players required to play with the same size racket with the same stringing?
All QB's in the league were given the same opportunity to fashion the footballs to their liking, not just Tom Brady. I don't think any one of them gave a damn about how it would effect the likelihood of fumbles when they made their choices.
Also, bad analogies. There are rules for gloves and rackets that must be followed.
They cheated.
Quote:
than your opponent NOT give you an advantage????
If the Pats intentionally change the pressure of the ball, its cheating.
And if they unintentionally changed it it's not. What's more important to a head coach, that his QB gets to throw a football that fits his personal preferences perfectly (try saying that three times fast) or that the football be inflated to a PCI that is ideal for ball security? If I'm the head coach and Tom Brady is my QB, I tell him to worry about nothing but what feels the most comfortable throwing.
And wasn't that the purpose of the 2006 change to begin with? To make it so that QB--who aren't all alike--each get the opportunity to break in the football to his liking. As long as it's a fully functioning football, why should it be one size fits all? Are all baseball players required to swing the same size bat or field the same size mitt? Are all tennis players required to play with the same size racket with the same stringing?
All QB's in the league were given the same opportunity to fashion the footballs to their liking, not just Tom Brady. I don't think any one of them gave a damn about how it would effect the likelihood of fumbles when they made their choices.
Your correct, the only problem that the Pats have though is that nothing can explain that much of a drastic drop in one half of football, other then a determined effort by them to ensure that drop happens.
2. Unless the league has a "smoking needle" with someone on film caught letting air out of the ball they have no case.
3. You want to blame someone, blame the NFL for having such a stupid policy. In every other sport the officials control the game balls, not the teams.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
Quote:
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
Quote:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
I'm not seeing where the rule is clear on this unless I'm missing something.
as explained by Dr. Allen Sanderson, a research scientist at the University of Utah.
Sanderson told Tom Pelissero of USA Today that accelerated deflation will occur naturally if the balls are inflated while at a higher temperature.
"What everyone’s looking for is somebody to have physically altered the ball by letting air out,” Sanderson said.
"The NFL rules are very much ambiguous really because they’re not specifying a temperature. They’re just specifying a pressure, and temperature makes all the difference in the world about how you make that measurement."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12109677 ArtVandelay said:
Quote:
to raise the psi by 2. Someone intentionally heated the balls or inflated them with hot air to elevate the psi before the test. They discovered a loophole. It's shady but probably not illegal.
See i think its a clear violation of the rule. Here is the rule:
Quote:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble
grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate
spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2
inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces
The rule stipulates that the ball is to inflated to a certain range to be played with during the game. Knowingly using a process to get the ball under that range during the game is a violation of that rule. Now if the rule said the ball just needs to be at the PSI when inspected then yes he would be using a loophole.
I'm not seeing where the rule is clear on this unless I'm missing something.
as explained by Dr. Allen Sanderson, a research scientist at the University of Utah.
Sanderson told Tom Pelissero of USA Today that accelerated deflation will occur naturally if the balls are inflated while at a higher temperature.
"What everyone’s looking for is somebody to have physically altered the ball by letting air out,” Sanderson said.
"The NFL rules are very much ambiguous really because they’re not specifying a temperature. They’re just specifying a pressure, and temperature makes all the difference in the world about how you make that measurement." Link - ( New Window )
Right, but that pressure they are specifying is what the ball needs to be at for the game, not just for the pregame inspection. If the intent was to manipulate the ball to get by the initial inspection and then play at 2 lbs under the specified rule, that is still a violation of the rule.
Doesn't this depend on how hot the air that the ball was filled with is?
Heat goes up, pressure goes up. If it had a long way to cool down, maybe it could? I dont know, high school chemistry and physics was a long time ago.
PV=nRT
The temperature is measured in degrees kelvin. If they filled them at room temperature and they cooled to freezing, then it would be a half a pound. For them to have a 2 pound drop in pressure they'd have to be filled at a temperature of around 125 degrees. That doesn't seem likely.
On the other hand.
The most interesting thing he said in the presser was that they request the balls to be filled to a certain pressure by the official. It seems to me that it's hard to hold them responsible for the pressure if they don't actually do the inflation.
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Need to be careful or we'll have Nike balls next year.
Wilson says BS - ( New Window )
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Inherent in your comments is that all protocol was followed precisely by the NFL officials.
I have no idea why anybody would not think the problem is most likely with the NFL, not the Patriots. The NFL, especially under Goodell, should inspire little to no confidence...
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Is that a fact that the same temperature air was used for all 24 balls? I didn't see that stated anywhere. I asked this question on another thread on Friday but that thread just died after my last post. Who maintains custody of the balls prior to the pre-game inspection?
Only by halftime science somehow deflated 11 of the Pats 12 balls and none of the Colts.
it's not a stretch here to see the human intervention - intentional human intervention.
Not saying the Pats didn't tamper with the balls, but you seem to omit that the NFL gives a "range" for acceptable PSI. We know the Pats like their balls at 12.5 PSI (or lower), but have the Colts specified the pressure they typically fill theirs too? If it's 13.5 PSI (I believe Rodgers said he likes it as firm as possible), then the Colts balls could've lost an entire pound of pressure and still been in the acceptable range.
the Patriots balls were two PSI below allowable levels, if the Patriots balls started at the higher end that would mean they lost even more PSI.
Keep trying.
the Patriots balls were two PSI below allowable levels, if the Patriots balls started at the higher end that would mean they lost even more PSI.
Keep trying.
I was explaining how the Pats balls could lose some pressure and be below the range, while the Colts balls could lose the same amount of pressure and still be within range.
Keep up! And has the NFL officially announced the pressure levels of the Pats balls? I know one was reportedly measured at 10.5 PSI, but I thought there was a report that the others were in the 11 PSI range.
I know, I live in MA and it's awful. They're clinging to shreds of science that don't apply interspersed with flat out lies.