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.
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.