Deflategate: This is what I've been saying from the start...

sports stories that I can recall.

but it still IS a rule and therefore must be complied with. moreover, the texts certainly suggest he KNEW it was a rule that he chose to break.

but you need to have regulations for the ball - size, pressure, etc. Otherwise, you'd have teams deliberately trying to monkey with the ball to their advantage.

not thinking a rule should be a rule is a horrid argument for justifying any actions that broke said rule. See air pressure, marijuana use, etc.

and found out shortly thereafter that the Pats were bending the rules in such a manner, we'd have all flipped out. But we didn't.

you don't think the football should be a "constant" and teams should be able to inflate/deflate the ball to their liking? Maybe a primary rushing team wants it less PSI to avoid fumbling. Maybe teams would have two balls on the sideline, one for run plays one for pass plays? Should that be ok?

Maybe some teams should be able to use a smaller football. Why not? You already don't want it to be the same PSI, why the same size?

Obviously the issue with the Patriots and Brady was overblown, but it was less about how much air was let out of the balls more about the coverup and hindering the investigation combined with their pattern of abusing the rules that led to the heavy handed punishment.

If the Patriots and Brady came clean from the beginning I believe it would have been far less of a circus.

in an effort to gain a competitive advantage and the resulting cover up and series of lies was a thumb in the leagues eye, obviously imho.

if the NFL hadn't changed the rules about ball preparation in direct response to lobbying from high-profile quarterbacks like Brady.

Brady pushed the NFL to make his job easier, then still cheated.

legth/weight/pressure. Makes absolutely no sense not to.

I think the years it took to figure it out are clouding Griese's opinion on this. How it was handled was ridiculous but the actual rule is a good one. Its such a simple rule, one that the players and coaches shouldn't even have to worry about or factor into their gameplan (unless they are cheating).

In comment 13471704 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

you don't think the football should be a "constant" and teams should be able to inflate/deflate the ball to their liking? Maybe a primary rushing team wants it less PSI to avoid fumbling. Maybe teams would have two balls on the sideline, one for run plays one for pass plays? Should that be ok? Maybe some teams should be able to use a smaller football. Why not? You already don't want it to be the same PSI, why the same size? Obviously the issue with the Patriots and Brady was overblown, but it was less about how much air was let out of the balls more about the coverup and hindering the investigation combined with their pattern of abusing the rules that led to the heavy handed punishment. If the Patriots and Brady came clean from the beginning I believe it would have been far less of a circus.

I agree with this post 100%. And I've thought from the beginning that the air pressure was much more about preventing fumbles than about throwing the ball (that's where the Patriots were statistical outliers during the seasons that preceded the "deflategate" issue more so than anywhere else).

But they don't. Each QB gets to choose the PSI he is most comfortable with. So why should that include a range? As long as the ball isn't blown up like a basketball or flat like a pancake, why should anyone else give a shit? Do all players need to where the same size shoulder pads? Do they all wear the same size helmets?

In comment 13471715 Milton said:

Quote:

But they don't. Each QB gets to choose the PSI he is most comfortable with. So why should that include a range? As long as the ball isn't blown up like a basketball or flat like a pancake, why should anyone else give a shit? Do all players need to where the same size shoulder pads? Do they all wear the same size helmets?

There are equipment standards too, it doesn't stop at just the football. But to answer your question, if you allow teams to doctor a ball to fit their preference which you are suggesting, how far can you go? Why even go down that road at all when you can make a standard size to abide by? Why does everyone but Brady/Pats have no issues following this rule?

In comment 13471708 Dave said:

Quote:

in an effort to gain a competitive advantage and the resulting cover up and series of lies was a thumb in the leagues eye, obviously imho.

Very true, Dave. Belichick should have been suspended for those 4 games also.

the field? Some teams don't have great speed, so shrinking the field a little should be allowed because it will help them.

Or maybe their kicker sucks, so slightly wider goalposts will be their choice.

In comment 13471720 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

There are equipment standards too, it doesn't stop at just the football. But to answer your question, if you allow teams to doctor a ball to fit their preference which you are suggesting, how far can you go? Why even go down that road at all when you can make a standard size to abide by?

They didn't doctor the ball, it was just inflated at a level in which it was still quite functional, but happened to fall below some arbitrary PSI. It's not as if stickum was applied to it.

Quote:

Why does everyone but Brady/Pats have no issues following this rule?

We have no idea if this is true, because for more than a decade QBs have been solely responsible for determining the PSI level of the footballs they use and nobody ever checked to see if it was regulation until someone complained about Tom Brady after losing by 40 points. In all likelihood, any QB who preferred a PSI outside the "regulation" range was free to skirt the silly rule. One could even argue that the mere fact that the NFL turned over the responsibility for measuring PSI to the QBs is an admission that it was an arbitrary rule to be freely ignored.

Again, I would feel differently if both offenses used the same ball, but they don't. And some twenty years ago the

In comment 13471731 dorgan said:

Quote:

the field? Some teams don't have great speed, so shrinking the field a little should be allowed because it will help them. Or maybe their kicker sucks, so slightly wider goalposts will be their choice.

Both teams use the same field and the same goal posts. You're comparing Apples to Buicks. Try again.

In comment 13471715 Milton said:

Quote:

But they don't. Each QB gets to choose the PSI he is most comfortable with. So why should that include a range? As long as the ball isn't blown up like a basketball or flat like a pancake, why should anyone else give a shit?

???

If the teams pick the PSI, why can't they make them flat as a pancake? And if there is a rule against "flat as a pancake footballs", you're back to what PSI is allowable.

I'm trying to think of a sport which allows teams to decide the PSI of the ball used in that sport. Can anyone think of even one sport that allows individual teams the right to pick and choose the PSI of their given ball?

teams are supposed to use the same ball inflated to the same pressure.

The Pats obviously didn't need a football with lower air pressure to keep winning - I think they pretty clearly proved that it made little to no real difference at the end of the day.

That said - rules are rules and teams are obligated to follow them.

In comment 13471715 Milton said:

Quote:

But they don't. Each QB gets to choose the PSI he is most comfortable with. So why should that include a range? As long as the ball isn't blown up like a basketball or flat like a pancake, why should anyone else give a shit? Do all players need to where the same size shoulder pads? Do they all wear the same size helmets?

Kind of a contradictory statement how you going to determine what's blown up too much or what's not enough without a limit put in place ??

the rule you have about something is absurd and should not be a rule. Really?

They allow a range. They don't say all balls have to be at 8 psi. 7-9 psi is a pretty big range, but still arbitrary and no real reason for it. Allow each team to fill the ball as they like. There's no competitive advantage.

they did doctor the ball. Use whatever term you want, they altered the ball outside of the accepted guidelines.

it's the NFLs fault. It caved in to whiners like Peyton Manning who wanted custom grip. Just let the fucking refs inflate them and let the players all deal with the same game balls.

there is an acceptable range that's neither too flat or too hard. What's so hard about this?

way they like them, should never have occurred. Balls should be all the same and controlled by the league.

In comment 13471704 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

you don't think the football should be a "constant" and teams should be able to inflate/deflate the ball to their liking? Maybe a primary rushing team wants it less PSI to avoid fumbling. Maybe teams would have two balls on the sideline, one for run plays one for pass plays? Should that be ok? Maybe some teams should be able to use a smaller football. Why not? You already don't want it to be the same PSI, why the same size? Obviously the issue with the Patriots and Brady was overblown, but it was less about how much air was let out of the balls more about the coverup and hindering the investigation combined with their pattern of abusing the rules that led to the heavy handed punishment. If the Patriots and Brady came clean from the beginning I believe it would have been far less of a circus.

This sums it up nicely. Terrible rationale by Bob.

In comment 13471776 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:

Quote:

way they like them, should never have occurred. Balls should be all the same and controlled by the league.

I can understand the wish to rough them up a bit. New footballs are slick.

Once you allow the teams to handle them before the game you invite issues, so I have to agree with your take on this.

Pretty simple: If the condition of the ball didn't matter, then Brady wouldn't have doctored it. If the Pats didn't know they were cheating, they would have been transparent and honest during the investigation.

The only reason this was all blown out of proportion was the Patriots refused to admit they cheated and instead embarked on their ridiculous "we're the victim" campaign.

"We didn't do it. Maybe it didn't actually happen? It makes no difference. Everyone does it. It shouldn't be a rule. The NFL hates us." Hasn't this basically been the Pats defense on the matter?

This is the most successful (and fortunate) franchise, and player, and coach, in decades of pro-football. But the NFL is out to get them and their adorable fans? Please. Its insulting.

The "persecution" of the Patriots is a myth constructed to obscure the obvious: the Pats cheat.

that sums it up pretty well.

Also, There obviously needs to be a standard for ball weight. This is a professional sport for chrissakes. Bob Griese us a senile fool.

It never ceases to amaze me how far some of you will bend backwards to avoid criticising little Bill. It is seriously vomit inducing.

This "case" was about as cut and dry as it gets. They broke the rule and tried to cover it up, and it was the Pats that turned it into a media circus by refusing to take responsibility.

...and somehow they came out of this as the victim. Unreal.

If it's proven that they deflated the balls intentionally knowing it was a rule, that means they not only "cheated" (I don't like that word because the infraction, IMO, is minimal in it's impact), but more to the point, they deemed that it was indeed an advantage, and thus, it should be a rule.

So I respectfully disagree.

me dunk on a 6 foot rim. I rock that shit better than Kenny Sky Walker.

In comment 13471819 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

If it's proven that they deflated the balls intentionally knowing it was a rule, that means they not only "cheated" (I don't like that word because the infraction, IMO, is minimal in it's impact), but more to the point, they deemed that it was indeed an advantage, and thus, it should be a rule. So I respectfully disagree.

They didn't deem it an "advantage"--they deemed it the PSI at which Brady was most comfortable throwing the football. Just as every other QB set the PSI at the level he was most comfortable throwing the football. I seriously doubt there were any who said to themselves, "Damn, I wish I could deflate (or inflate) the ball a smidgeon outside of what regulation allows, but rules are rules."

Having a football that meets your comfort level gives you no more of an advantage than having a helmet and shoulder pads that fit your comfort level. It's not as if Brady didn't win two Super Bowls with the NFL closely monitoring the PSI levels of the footballs he used. Something they'd never done for any other QB.

It was a fucking witch hunt that served nobody's interest (other than give the jealous haters something to grasp onto, so if that's where your sympathies lie, I guess there's that).

In comment 13471852 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

me dunk on a 6 foot rim. I rock that shit better than Kenny Sky Walker.

But that would mean everyone else gets to dunk on the same 6 foot rim. Another example of comparing Apples to Buicks. Try again.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. There's a number of examples throughout this thread that shows why the rule would be in place but you only counterargument being made is that its "arbitrary" and doesn't give you an edge (if it didn't why would people go to lengths covering it up)?

There absolutely zero downside to this being a rule. There's tons of downside in taking this out of the rules and allowing teams to do whatever they want. Is this even arguable?

In comment 13471731 dorgan said:

Quote:

the field? Some teams don't have great speed, so shrinking the field a little should be allowed because it will help them. Or maybe their kicker sucks, so slightly wider goalposts will be their choice.

That is a completely different argument. Both teams have to play on the same field at the same time. Both teams do not have access to the ball at the same time. And this is not like other sports (basketball, soccer, volleyball) where possession of the ball changes from second to second.

As long as both teams have equal access to the rule then I do not see an advantage.

less air for a running team, more air for a more passing dominant team. Do you get to rotate? How many times? Will that delay the game when doing so?

What's the point of having the option? I can't think of a single reason why there shouldn't be a rule outside of just complaining that the rule sucks.

The NFL gets a lot of things wrong but this isn't one of them.

In comment 13471852 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

me dunk on a 6 foot rim. I rock that shit better than Kenny Sky Walker.

Im sure you think you are making a point but as long as the other team has equal access to the rule, there would be no net advantage.

The other thing to consider, that is slightly off topic, is that the other team would only have to defend a 6' basket which is also easier.

Lastly (and this is not directed at FMiC) the idea that the rule is arbitrary and that the patriots were wrong for breaking an arbitrary rule are separate and are not mutually exclusive arguments.

uniformity in balls that kickers use? I think around 200. I remember years ago each kicker had his own ball, and they varied greatly from what would be used on offense. They were very worn out and I think over inflated. Kickers and punters didnt like going to new balls when they changed the rules.

I dont have a problem with the offense getting to pick the ball. I dont much care. I think the deflategate penalty was really harsh and was not handed out in good faith.

In comment 13471885 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

less air for a running team, more air for a more passing dominant team.

So if both teams can do it, is there an advantage? If not, why is that a problem? Would that not lead to better football to watch?

Quote:

Do you get to rotate?

Yes.

Quote:

How many times?

Unlimited.

Quote:

Will that delay the game when doing so?

No but if it does the officials will throw a flag for "delay of game."

Quote:

What's the point of having the option?

The point is to allow athletes to execute at the highest level possible which in turn creates a better game to watch.

Imagine if MLB made Ichiro and Frank Thomas use the same size bat.

on what they used to do to the balls in the 90s
Link - ( New Window )

would be if Frank Thomas and Ichiro used the different sized baseballs. The equipment used is part of the game, adjusted for size, strength, etc. But if you don't like that, I guess complain to the MLB.

Having a non-uniform football policy introducing even more judgement and even more cheating. You said yourself the goal is to play at the highest level so I guess you admit that altering the ball does provide an advantage...

the game balls.

Could you imagine Gaylord Perry preparing his own personal bucket of game balls? :-)

In comment 13471897 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

would be if Frank Thomas and Ichiro used the different sized baseballs. The equipment used is part of the game, adjusted for size, strength, etc. But if you don't like that, I guess complain to the MLB. Having a non-uniform football policy introducing even more judgement and even more cheating. You said yourself the goal is to play at the highest level so I guess you admit that altering the ball does provide an advantage...

One of my favorite things about baseball is that each park is different. Different dimensions, different wind, different light.

I dont think that each pitcher preparing his own balls is odder than each team having majorly different stadiums. Where you could play in a bandbox with a short porch one day (against a team built to pound that porch) and in Yosemite the next day (with a team build to pitch and defend that park).

by both teams, not rotated to fill an advantage. Some also use turf instead of grass just like the NFL as well.

Not everything needs to be an option or a choice. I just don't understand the vitriol towards the NFL wanting 1 ball to be the same across the board.

In comment 13471897 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

would be if Frank Thomas and Ichiro used the different sized baseballs. The equipment used is part of the game, adjusted for size, strength, etc. But if you don't like that, I guess complain to the MLB.

No baseballs should be uniform because both the hitter and pitcher interacts with the ball on a pitch by pitch basis. Same reason that basketballs, volleyballs, soccer balls should be uniform.

However, only the hitter uses the bat. Just like only the offensive team (99% of the time) interacts with the ball in football.

Quote:

Having a non-uniform football policy introducing even more judgement and even more cheating.

There would actually be less cheating because you would eliminate the rule. Therefore, there would be no rule to be broken.

Quote:

You said yourself the goal is to play at the highest level so I guess you admit that altering the ball does provide an advantage...

There would be no net advantage because both teams could do it.

Just as there is no advantage to allowing MLB hitters to use any size bat they want because both teams can make whatever choice they want.

Does it make them more productive hitters? Of course. But because it allows BOTH teams to become better hitters then there is no advantage.

I would deflate the football completely, then it would be even easier to hide handoffs.

you can find a reason to make anything work. My point is that it introduces more downside and cheating. And what is the limit? How flat can the ball be and wouldn't whatever that number is be arbitrary too? Wouldn't going under that number be cheating?

The league would be pretty laughable if the balls kept changing every play. There's a range it needs to be in, same rules for everyone. Its never been an issue.

In comment 13471920 Old Professor said:

Quote:

I would deflate the football completely, then it would be even easier to hide handoffs.

But then the defensive team would know that you were running the ball on every play.

In comment 13471931 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

you can find a reason to make anything work. My point is that it introduces more downside and cheating. And what is the limit? How flat can the ball be and wouldn't whatever that number is be arbitrary too? Wouldn't going under that number be cheating? The league would be pretty laughable if the balls kept changing every play. There's a range it needs to be in, same rules for everyone. Its never been an issue.

That is the point. Don't make a range. That eliminates cheating and both teams have equal access to the rule when they are on offense.

If you want to make the slippery slope argument and say that the offensive team could completely deflate the ball to make fumbles nearly impossible then the defensive team would know that you would be running it on every play because you then make passing virtually impossible. Hardly an advantage.

If the balls changed every play I imagine one of two things (or both) would happen.

1. The defensive team would assign people to watch which ball is used for which type of play thus tipping them off to a run/pass play.

2. Even if the offensive team were able to use different balls without the defensive team figuring it out, that would eliminate the run/pass audible which virtually every team has in place on every play.

So changing footballs based on play call would be shortsighted to say the least.

In comment 13471920 Old Professor said:

Quote:

I would deflate the football completely, then it would be even easier to hide handoffs.

That was actually done in the past. I'll try to find a cite, but a coach actually had his players deflate the ball, hide it under their jersey and then reveal the ball after they scored a TD.
If there was a way to cheat, the coaches in the early stages of the game found it.

There was another coach who had full size football patches sewn on the front of all their jerseys so the opponents would get confused and tackle the wrong player.

and not introduce an entirely new way to play the game of football. This sounds like NFL Blitz.

The ball stays between 13-14 PSI or whatever it is, its checked by officials, the game is played. Why it needs to be anything more than that is beyond me.

The focus should be on refining rules to take as much judgement and ambiguity out of the game as possible.

Quote:

They didn't deem it an "advantage"--they deemed it the PSI at which Brady was most comfortable throwing the football.

Come on. This is almost by definition an advantage when you consider the other team isn't doing it. I ultimately do agree with you that it was a witch hunt and the advantage was minimal. Your analogy to equipment fitting right is silly. The football is not a piece of equipment. It is the football, collectively shared by all who play the game, and the level of it's inflation matters to both the people throwing it, catching it, and everyone in between.

And again, I hope it's not lost that I do agree with you in the overarching principle that the whole investigation was nonsensical at best, and with that, there's no need for you to challenge the obvious and undeniable definition of what an advantage is. It doesn't serve your argument; an argument I ultimately share.

In comment 13471964 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

and not introduce an entirely new way to play the game of football. This sounds like NFL Blitz. The ball stays between 13-14 PSI or whatever it is, its checked by officials, the game is played. Why it needs to be anything more than that is beyond me. The focus should be on refining rules to take as much judgement and ambiguity out of the game as possible.

You can take ALL of the judgement and ambiguity out if you simply ELIMINATE THE RULE. Having the rule INCREASES judgement and ambiguity.

Did the cold weather lower the PSI?
Did the offensive ball get mix in the the kicker's footballs?
Was there time to deflate the balls after the officials checked them?
IF so, who had access to the balls? etc etc.

ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT and the arbitrary rule and it eliminates so much needless consternation and provides NO advantage to either team.

Simple...Each offense can have whatever PSI they want. If a team goes crazy be deflating the ball down to nothing there are NATURAL consequences (like those that I previously stated) to doing that without official rules.

do you follow every single rule and detail dictated by your office? didn't think so

for the preference of its own QB is nuts, IMO.

New balls out of the box are too slippery? Fine, have the league prep the balls, using a standard method, have the league inflate them, and game officials check the pressure before the game and at halftime, and before overtime if there is one.

Everybody uses the same ball, the ball is the ball, done.

In comment 13471972 Capt. Don said:

Quote:

In comment 13471964 UConn4523 said: Quote: and not introduce an entirely new way to play the game of football. This sounds like NFL Blitz. The ball stays between 13-14 PSI or whatever it is, its checked by officials, the game is played. Why it needs to be anything more than that is beyond me. The focus should be on refining rules to take as much judgement and ambiguity out of the game as possible. You can take ALL of the judgement and ambiguity out if you simply ELIMINATE THE RULE. Having the rule INCREASES judgement and ambiguity. Did the cold weather lower the PSI? Did the offensive ball get mix in the the kicker's footballs? Was there time to deflate the balls after the officials checked them? IF so, who had access to the balls? etc etc. ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT and the arbitrary rule and it eliminates so much needless consternation and provides NO advantage to either team. Simple...Each offense can have whatever PSI they want. If a team goes crazy be deflating the ball down to nothing there are NATURAL consequences (like those that I previously stated) to doing that without official rules.

You are asking for the entire game to be changed just so guys like Brady can have the ball at the pressure they want...think about that.

The rule isn't ambiguous. The balls are measured before the game and at halftime to account for weather. That's it. You are proposing letting a team run out there with a flat ball if they want. Is that even football? I wouldn't watch a sport that did that, seems utterly ridiculous.

In comment 13471973 Rory said:

Quote:

do you follow every single rule and detail dictated by your office? didn't think so

Should there be no consequences if a rule is broken and you are caught breaking it?

In comment 13471981 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

for the preference of its own QB is nuts, IMO. New balls out of the box are too slippery? Fine, have the league prep the balls, using a standard method, have the league inflate them, and game officials check the pressure before the game and at halftime, and before overtime if there is one. Everybody uses the same ball, the ball is the ball, done.

Bingo.

That seems almost too simple for the NFL to adopt. They'll make it complicated for no freaking reason.

In comment 13471982 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13471972 Capt. Don said: Quote: In comment 13471964 UConn4523 said: Quote: and not introduce an entirely new way to play the game of football. This sounds like NFL Blitz. The ball stays between 13-14 PSI or whatever it is, its checked by officials, the game is played. Why it needs to be anything more than that is beyond me. The focus should be on refining rules to take as much judgement and ambiguity out of the game as possible. You can take ALL of the judgement and ambiguity out if you simply ELIMINATE THE RULE. Having the rule INCREASES judgement and ambiguity. Did the cold weather lower the PSI? Did the offensive ball get mix in the the kicker's footballs? Was there time to deflate the balls after the officials checked them? IF so, who had access to the balls? etc etc. ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT and the arbitrary rule and it eliminates so much needless consternation and provides NO advantage to either team. Simple...Each offense can have whatever PSI they want. If a team goes crazy be deflating the ball down to nothing there are NATURAL consequences (like those that I previously stated) to doing that without official rules. You are asking for the entire game to be changed just so guys like Brady can have the ball at the pressure they want...think about that. The rule isn't ambiguous. The balls are measured before the game and at halftime to account for weather. That's it. You are proposing letting a team run out there with a flat ball if they want. Is that even football? I wouldn't watch a sport that did that, seems utterly ridiculous.

1st - The entire game would not change. In fact, I doubt anyone watching the game would notice any difference at all. The reason I say this is there were reports that most if not all QBs have manipulated the ball pressure to their liking and this only came to light because the colts blew Brady in. So there is a good chance that QBs have been doing this without us knowing for some time now. So the "entire" game changing is hyperbole.

Im saying they could if they wanted but you and I know that wouldnt happen because of the natural consequences.

Most likely, QBs would deflate/inflate them to the exact point that they handle/throw the ball best.

It is not an advantage because both teams can do it and it is good for football because it allows for maximum precision.

The conspiracy theoriest/alarmists who say that teams could go out there with a completely deflated ball are operating under that the premise that teams would do so to their own detriment.

What would stop them from doing that? Their own self interest. If you have a completely flat ball the entire defense knows exactly what is about to happen.

In comment 13471967 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Quote: They didn't deem it an "advantage"--they deemed it the PSI at which Brady was most comfortable throwing the football. Come on. This is almost by definition an advantage when you consider the other team isn't doing it.

But, in fact, the other team is doing it. All QBs get to decide on the PSI at which they are most comfortable and nobody ever checks to see if it is within some arbitrary range that has no significance.

Quote:

Your analogy to equipment fitting right is silly. The football is not a piece of equipment. It is the football, collectively shared by all who play the game.

But it's not collectively shared. Each team's QB gets to choose the football he will be using that day. They don't share.

Quote:

there's no need for you to challenge the obvious and undeniable definition of what an advantage is. It doesn't serve your argument; an argument I ultimately share.

It's not an advantage. It would be a disadvantage if he were to be denied the right to choose the PSI level the football he will be throwing that day, because it is a right that every other QB is allowed. No other QB had the PSI levels of their footballs tested. If you can find me a QB who said he would've preferred a higher or lower PSI, but didn't want to break an arbitrary rule that nobody was monitoring, I will eat a tunafish sandwich.

I feel like if you want to be a painter or a dancer or a surfer, you know, something that's very creative, then no rules is just fine.

I'm not sure I understand how not having rules in a sporting competition would work. The idea that each team could play with its own ball just seems bizarre to me. Aren't rules and standards kind of important in sports?

then why even have it at all?

In comment 13471985 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

Should there be no consequences if a rule is broken and you are caught breaking it?

In this case the consequence should be to get rid of the rule. It's arbitrary and unnecessary.

In comment 13472010 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

then why even have it at all?

Have what?

In comment 13472008 trueblueinpw said:

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand how not having rules in a sporting competition would work.

Who is saying there shouldn't be rules to a sporting event? But rules are tweaked all the time. What's important is that there be meaningful rules, not arbitrary ones.

Quote:

The idea that each team could play with its own ball just seems bizarre to me.

But each team does and that's been the case for decades. It's just that nobody was aware of it until Goodall went on a witch hunt.

In comment 13472010 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

then why even have it at all?

You're right. They should get rid of it. It's like having a rule that all shoe sizes need to be within the range of 8 to 14 and if your foot falls outside that arbitrary range you are shit out of luck.

Came to the conclusion that there was no advantage to doing so. So at worst, Brady thought he was getting an advantage but wasn't. BFD

Quote:

That NFL rule — that calls for each team to supply its own 12 balls for offense — hasn't always been the rule. The change happened quietly in 2006 when two quarterbacks went to the league lobbying for a tweak in the NFL rulebook regarding how footballs were supplied. It garnered virtually no notice or media attention. So little that you probably don't know then-Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning led the intense effort to change the rules — along with Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. Ted Wells: Patriots' investigation to take 'several more weeks' At the time, the NFL rules called for home teams to supply all the footballs — new footballs. And those footballs weren't available to road teams until pregame warmups. Changing the rule to allow each offense to supply its own footballs would make the game more fair, Manning and Brady argued. It would prohibit a home team from suddenly handing a visiting quarterback one of those dreaded fresh-from-the-box footballs for an important drive with minutes left in a tight game. "If (a bad throw happens) because somebody is at the quarterback's feet, that's one thing," Manning said at the time, "but not because of a bad football." Manning and Brady's offseason petition campaign in 2006 ended successfully. The two persuaded members of the NFL competition committee to alter the rules and allow each team's offense to supply the footballs while that club has possession. "We had a little petition going around ... and got 20 quarterbacks to sign the petition," Manning said after the rules were changed that season. "We tracked Steve (McNair) down in Mississippi. Everybody faxed their petition back pretty much the next day. It was pretty much a no-brainer on trying to get that changed because it just makes sense. ... Nobody wants to see a receiver wide open and the ball two-hopped to him because the ball is slick." Had the rule not changed, would Deflategate ever have happened? Sure, the Patriots would have supplied the balls in last Sunday's AFC Championship Game against the Colts because they were the home team. But it was the rule change that paved the way for quarterbacks to be pickier about the footballs they use. To doctor them. To wash them and throw them in the dryer. Because the balls don't have to be new on game day, equipment managers and quarterbacks can work all week long to get them the way they want. "The thing is, every quarterback likes it a little bit different," Brady said after addressing the competition committee. "Some like them blown up a little bit more, some like them a little more thin, some like them a little more new, some like them really broken in."

link - ( New Window )

except the Patriots demolished them in the 2nd half when the ball was "legal".

So big advantage. Yeah right.

I do not think the speed limit should be 65 MPH there for I drove 80. I just think 65 is stupid...


It is a rule. The ball has to have a certain pressure. And...who cares what Bob Griese thinks?

In comment 13472010 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

then why even have it at all?

If you are talking about the rule - They shouldn't! Eliminate it completely.

Here are my final points on completely eliminating the rule:

1. It would simplify the rule book and make for one less thing the NFL would have to enforce.

2. There would be no advantage created because both teams could do it.

3. It would create more precision and fewer mistakes (by both teams) which in turn makes for a more fun game to watch.

4. The idea that teams would completely deflate the ball (or have a run/pass ball) is ridiculous because it would eliminate half their playbook and the ability to audible.

pertaining to the ball?

In comment 13472072 dorgan said:

Quote:

pertaining to the ball?

pertaining to the air pressure of the ball. Not the ball itself.

The Colts are challenging that the ball is underinflated.

back after this

*Team discipline is cumulative. This isn't the Pats first run in with the league for playing fast and loose with the rulebook.

*Uniformity to a reasonable degree throughout the game is good and provides a level playing field for all. The penalties for this offense are minor as laid out in the Rules...as long as you cooperate with the league, it's officials and inquiries. This is where Brady and the team fucked up. Had they simply stated we did it, perhaps misunderstood what the spirit of the rule was about, etc, we will cooperate and comply with league findings this entire episode would have went away quickly and quietly...

So why didn't they go this route and brought into play much more serious penalties for obstruction and coverup? Because they're shady and when you're knowingly guilty you tend to act that way. They victimized themselves and I for one find the entire episode played out exactly as it should have despite some very strange legal rulings along the way. In the end the courts and the league got it right.

several pounds pressure on all long field goal tries against the Giants this year...

In comment 13471715 Milton said:

Quote:

But they don't. Each QB gets to choose the PSI he is most comfortable with. So why should that include a range? As long as the ball isn't blown up like a basketball or flat like a pancake, why should anyone else give a shit? Do all players need to where the same size shoulder pads? Do they all wear the same size helmets?

Guess we better throw out any rules about ball doctoring in baseball, too.

In comment 13471686 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

sports stories that I can recall.

Agreed. Not to mention the court time & money wasted

In comment 13471686 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

sports stories that I can recall.

Agreed. Not to mention the court time & money wasted

and had to drop down 10 spots in the 4th round of the draft because the coach used a walkie talkie instead of a headset for four plays during a game...

Of course none of us liked that we were penalized in that way for something so inconsequential, but most of us accepted the decision because a rule is a rule - and the Giants broke a rule.

Not only did the Patriots break a rule, but they tried to cover it up. That's not the way grown ups handle things - if you make a mistake, or if you do something wrong and get caught, you're supposed to own up to it. That's exactly what Ben McAdoo did, and what Tom Brady did not do.

If the Patriots have a problem with a rule, the proper way to go about it is to have their ownership try to have it changed in the rules committee that meets every offseason. Robert Kraft happens to be one of the most respected voices in the NFL - maybe it's something that could have been addressed.

Yes, the penalty against the Patriots was ridiculously harsh, but again "deflategate" doesn't happen like this if the Patriots didn't already have a history of cheating, if Tom Brady owns up to what he did like an adult, or if there's no cover up. This was never about the stupid rule, it was about the people who made the conscious decision to break it - and that's why I don't sympathize with the Patriots on this.

this isn't true.

Quote:

RE: You should see.. Milton : 12:01 pm : link : reply In comment 13471852 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: me dunk on a 6 foot rim. I rock that shit better than Kenny Sky Walker. But that would mean everyone else gets to dunk on the same 6 foot rim. Another example of comparing Apples to Buicks. Try again.

When a team gets to decide which balls they use, an extreme example would be a team deciding which rim height they'd use.

The most salient point on this thread is that the giants were harshly docked for violating what seems like something that was open and offered little to no advantage, yet most understood that the rule was the rule. Not sure why breaking a rule then covering it up is being glossed over.

while the whole thing was going on. Sorry, there is a rule in place, and of course the Patriots violated it to get an advantage. The penalty was too harsh, vacated by judge, Goodell imposed it anyway. The whole thing totally mishandled. Should have been two game suspension, reduced to one on appeal.

In comment 13472340 Glover said:

Quote:

The penalty was too harsh, vacated by judge, Goodell imposed it anyway. The whole thing totally mishandled. Should have been two game suspension, reduced to one on appeal.

Should've been a $5,000 fine and abandonment of the arbitrary and meaningless rule.

In comment 13471764 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

it's the NFLs fault. It caved in to whiners like Peyton Manning who wanted custom grip. Just let the fucking refs inflate them and let the players all deal with the same game balls.

Brady was one of those "whiners."

The rule was in place, and you had a team and a player still try to screw around with it.

People are talking like it's the rule that's to blame for everything that resulted. Why does anyone think removing the rule will prevent people from taking an unfair advantage?

No it a big deal why did the ball boy take the balls into the bathroom after they were examined by the ref? Also, why did Brady destroy his phone? It just seems the Pats/Brady went to great lengths to hide things

In comment 13472369 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 13472340 Glover said: Quote: The penalty was too harsh, vacated by judge, Goodell imposed it anyway. The whole thing totally mishandled. Should have been two game suspension, reduced to one on appeal. Should've been a $5,000 fine and abandonment of the arbitrary and meaningless rule.

Milton, there's simply too much here for me to take your posts seriously anymore. I applaud you for not giving in but you aren't making any sense now. So the penalty for cheating should have been essentially nothing and on top of that the overturning of a rule that hasn't been a problem for anyone else to abide by?

Is far removed from the reason they were penalized. It was the cover up. Tom Brady had every chance to over up that phone, was even told they only wanted source material pertaining to the investigation and anything else in his phone, i.e. a drug deal or naked pictures of him and Edleman together were not to be divulged. Had he handed over the phone and even if found guilty, I think it would of stopped at just a suspension for 1-3 games.

In comment 13472369 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 13472340 Glover said: Quote: The penalty was too harsh, vacated by judge, Goodell imposed it anyway. The whole thing totally mishandled. Should have been two game suspension, reduced to one on appeal. Should've been a $5,000 fine and abandonment of the arbitrary and meaningless rule.

Milton, I'm glad it only took three weeks for you to find a new topic to become inexplicably and stubbornly unbowed about. I was worried how you'd fill that Cam Robinson-sized void.

not the deflating that was punished,he thumbed his nose at the league despite concessions about other materials on his phone being kept private,despite being caught in a lie about knowing the equipment guy involved or the rules regarding the pressure since he told the equipment guy the pressure to put in the ball you would need to know about this to make that request

i would have handed down that punishment just on the actions of his useless agent alone,it worked thou the patriots instilled an "us against the rest of the league" mentality into that team that propelled them to the title (that and the falcons 2nd RB not being able to pick up a blitz in the 4th qtr)

gives no advantage to receiver vis a vis the defender. They both have the same opportunity to catch the ball and hold onto it and the defender can knock the ball away regardless of its air pressure. Running the ball is another matter. An under-inflated ball would be more difficult to strip from a running back. Also, in wet weather an under-inflated ball would be easier to hold on to by both quarterback and running back.

In comment 13471905 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

the game balls. Could you imagine Gaylord Perry preparing his own personal bucket of game balls? :-)

Pretty sure that's not true.

Quote:

Jack Efta has the dirtiest job around. The umpires-room attendant for the Cleveland Indians prepares 12 dozen baseballs before every home game, expertly sliding his fingers over each ball, smearing them with mud. It's a baseball ritual that's been done for decades. Efta is a fit 63-year-old who was born in Fairview Park. He is in his 22nd year with the Indians in his current role, 37th overall. He also served as a ball boy from 1966 to 1970, and a bat boy in 1970-71. In 22 years in his current role, he has been there through the first pitch of every game.

link - ( New Window )