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.