Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[Golfingdad]

I have to agree on this. In reality you want the ball over-inflated because it would go be easier to throw. If the ball is under-inflated then it is less aerodynamic. Given some are saying it is easier to catch, but the problem is on accuracy on the throw it self. I would say most NFL WR wear gloves that are extremely tacky. I see no real benefit from under-inflating a ball. Heck, an under inflated ball would hamper a field goal kicker as well.

Yup.  The whole thing is based on this assumption.  If there is no motive, then how/why would there be a crime?  Would people still consider it cheating of the Patriots were caught smearing vaseline all over their receivers hands or their running backs stomach? ;)  (Assuming vaseline is illegal)

Heck, an under inflated ball would hamper a field goal kicker as well.

In the NFL they have special balls exclusively for kicking.  And in fact I just learned from this situation that those balls are always in the possession of officials even during the game, supposedly.

[meenman]

If belicheat was up to his old shenanigans in a blowout (that game was over minutes into it once the Colts fumbled,) what is he doing in a close game? If the NFL was any credibility, he would have had a lifetime ban after spygate.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Point taken, however, I'd dispute that a "big" deal is being made out of this by anyone but us.  It's on the sidebar of espn.com but it's not jumping out as one of their headlines.

I dispute those! First off, you're missing point 3.5, which is that the Colts had possession of the ball in question immediately before it was taken out of play.

Regarding Point 4:  How do you know this?  It's been "proven" that that is an erroneous assumption in the last hour by Aaron Rodgers himself.  If under-inflated balls are an advantage to the offense, why does he try to over-inflate his?  That is an assumption being made in the stories being circulated, but by no means is it a given.  Just throw that one out.

And if I was a lawyer, I could get 5 thrown out as irrelevant**, and 6 is unnecessarily inflammatory.  My "undisputed" list of facts is:

• The balls were tested before the game.
• The Patriots had possession of the balls during the game.
• At least one of those balls was deflated.
• The Colts had possession of this ball immediately before the discovery.
• The NFL is investigating how the ball became deflated.

Now, try and dispute that!

**I base that on the fact that when I was on a murder trial jury, the defense lawyer successfully got the defendants other gun charges thrown out. ;)

I probably edited my post above when you were writing, but the ball wasn't taken out immediately.  It was taken out on the first play of the 3rd quarter.  http://deadspin.com/report-patriots-under-nfl-investigation-for-deflating-1680358128.   So it wasn't most recently in the hands of the colts (and come on, do you think he intercepted the ball and then quickly deflated before giving it back? talk about jumping to conclusions ).  And it might not have even been the same ball.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

I have to agree on this. In reality you want the ball over-inflated because it would go be easier to throw. If the ball is under-inflated then it is less aerodynamic. Given some are saying it is easier to catch, but the problem is on accuracy on the throw it self. I would say most NFL WR wear gloves that are extremely tacky. I see no real benefit from under-inflating a ball. Heck, an under inflated ball would hamper a field goal kicker as well.

But you can't look at this in a vacuum.  The weather conditions on Sunday made deflation an advantage because a softer ball is easier to grip.

And kickers use different balls.  They are less scuffed up and more slippery.  And they like them more inflated not less.

And yes, this and what Rodgers said were different.

Quote:

For games, ball attendants are hired by the teams keep track of the footballs, but they are supposed to be tested periodically to make sure they are still usable.

The NFL game operations manual states that “once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way.

“If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible, and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

The balls Rodgers use, as I understand his comment, are "approved."

[Golfingdad]

If belicheat was up to his old shenanigans in a blowout (that game was over minutes into it once the Colts fumbled,) what is he doing in a close game?

If the NFL was any credibility, he would have had a lifetime ban after spygate.

Why so lenient?

I mean, if he is akin to a rapist, shouldn't he be either in jail for the rest of his life or better yet, shouldn't he be executed?  That seems fair to me.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Point taken, however, I'd dispute that a "big" deal is being made out of this by anyone but us.  It's on the sidebar of espn.com but it's not jumping out as one of their headlines.

I dispute those! First off, you're missing point 3.5, which is that the Colts had possession of the ball in question immediately before it was taken out of play.

Regarding Point 4:  How do you know this?  It's been "proven" that that is an erroneous assumption in the last hour by Aaron Rodgers himself.  If under-inflated balls are an advantage to the offense, why does he try to over-inflate his?  That is an assumption being made in the stories being circulated, but by no means is it a given.  Just throw that one out.

And if I was a lawyer, I could get 5 thrown out as irrelevant**, and 6 is unnecessarily inflammatory.  My "undisputed" list of facts is:

• The balls were tested before the game.
• The Patriots had possession of the balls during the game.
• At least one of those balls was deflated.
• The Colts had possession of this ball immediately before the discovery.
• The NFL is investigating how the ball became deflated.

Now, try and dispute that!

**I base that on the fact that when I was on a murder trial jury, the defense lawyer successfully got the defendants other gun charges thrown out. ;)

I probably edited my post above when you were writing, but the ball wasn't taken out immediately.  It was taken out on the first play of the 3rd quarter.  http://deadspin.com/report-patriots-under-nfl-investigation-for-deflating-1680358128.   So it wasn't most recently in the hands of the colts (and come on, do you think he intercepted the ball and then quickly deflated before giving it back? talk about jumping to conclusions ).  And it might not have even been the same ball.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

I have to agree on this. In reality you want the ball over-inflated because it would go be easier to throw. If the ball is under-inflated then it is less aerodynamic. Given some are saying it is easier to catch, but the problem is on accuracy on the throw it self. I would say most NFL WR wear gloves that are extremely tacky. I see no real benefit from under-inflating a ball. Heck, an under inflated ball would hamper a field goal kicker as well.

But you can't look at this in a vacuum.  The weather conditions on Sunday made deflation an advantage because a softer ball is easier to grip.

And kickers use different balls.  They are less scuffed up and more slippery.  And they like them more inflated not less.

And yes, this and what Rodgers said were different.

Quote:

For games, ball attendants are hired by the teams keep track of the footballs, but they are supposed to be tested periodically to make sure they are still usable.

The NFL game operations manual states that “once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way.

“If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible, and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

The balls Rodgers use, as I understand his comment, are "approved."

What Rogers did was exactly the same.  He told Simms that he inflated them past the high end limit.

What I don't get Dan is your hate.  I'm from Boston.  Of course I am a Patriots fan and a Red Sox, Bruins, Celtics, Revs, Breakers etc fan.  But guess what, I don't hate your team.  I don't hate the Giants or the Yankees or the Jets or the Packers (for 1995).  In fact, the Packers are my favorite NFC team.  I think Rogers is a terrific QB and love watching him play even when he beat the Patriots.

I lived in Cincinnati for two years and cheered for the Bengals and Reds.  I even met Chris Collinsworth and played Millipede with him.

But you and some others seem so consumed by hate that I question why you even watch football.  It is totally cool that you are not a Patriots fan.  You're not from here.  But the hate seems out of character and very consuming.  It makes some idiot fans do stupid things.  I'm not the only one that thinks it also clouds your judgement about the Patriots either.

[meenman]

Why so lenient? I mean, if he is akin to a rapist, shouldn't he be either in jail for the rest of his life or better yet, shouldn't he be executed?  That seems fair to me.

I am pretty sure most rapists do not get the death penalty or life in prison, so I am being fair. [quote name="boogielicious" url="/t/76052/are-you-ready-for-some-nfl-football-2014-edition/1080#post_1096965"] What Rogers did was exactly the same.  He told Simms that he inflated them [/quote] Rogers is not the equivalent of a convicted felon like belicheat is. If he is caught doing something wrong then we can persecute him too.

[Golfingdad]

I actually agree with both of you a little bit regarding the Rodgers thing.  I understand why Dan thinks its different, and I thought of an analogy that goes pretty well here:

In my business (civil engineering), we will frequently submit plans to an agency to see if they'll approve something that they previously haven't allowed or we think they might not like just to see if we can get it approved.  However, we would NEVER make an attempt to alter approved plans in the field to something that we know they've already disallowed.  That is extremely unethical.

That said, I also agree that the Rodgers thing does at least (well, it should, if people take off their Patriots-hating blinders) alter the narrative and add a little perspective to the whole thing because it reminds everybody that the Patriots aren't the only ones out there trying to get an edge.  Not to mention the fact that it puts a huge hole in the alleged story by accusing the Patriots of doing the exact opposite of what a future Hall of Fame QB thinks is advantageous.

Also, we can't forget that Rodgers DID do this - he admits so - and there is ZERO evidence at this point that the Patriots have done anything illegal.

I wonder if we'll find out that Dustin Pedrioia is being investigated for cheating all these years because he allegedly replaced the inside of one of his bats with 6 pounds of lead?

[dsc123]

What Rogers did was exactly the same.  He told Simms that he inflated them past the high end limit.

yeah, i just don't agree with this.  I think there's a difference between giving a ball to the ref for approval that is over inflated, and altering the ball afterwards.  There's no penalty for offering a nonconforming ball.  There's a penalty for altering it afterwards.  I get that you don't agree, that's cool.  I'd love to hear why, but you really just respond with a statement that "its the same".  That's okay, too.  You don't have to engage with me.  But that's all I'm doing when I challenge your comments.

What I don't get Dan is your hate.  I'm from Boston.  Of course I am a Patriots fan and a Red Sox, Bruins, Celtics, Revs, Breakers etc fan.  But guess what, I don't hate your team.  I don't hate the Giants or the Yankees or the Jets or the Packers (for 1995).  In fact, the Packers are my favorite NFC team.  I think Rogers is a terrific QB and love watching him play even when he beat the Patriots.

What I don't get Dan is your hate.  I'm from Boston.  Of course I am a Patriots fan and a Red Sox, Bruins, Celtics, Revs, Breakers etc fan.  But guess what, I don't hate your team.  I don't hate the Giants or the Yankees or the Jets or the Packers (for 1995).  In fact, the Packers are my favorite NFC team.  I think Rogers is a terrific QB and love watching him play even when he beat the Patriots.

I lived in Cincinnati for two years and cheered for the Bengals and Reds.  I even met Chris Collinsworth and played Millipede with him.

But you and some others seem so consumed by hate that I question why you even watch football.  It is totally cool that you are not a Patriots fan.  You're not from here.  But the hate seems out of character and very consuming.  It makes some idiot fans do stupid things.  I'm not the only one that thinks it also clouds your judgement about the Patriots either.

Whoa now, did you just call me a Giants fan?  I don't root for teams from the state of new jersey.

Its not like I'm sitting here angrily typing on my keyboard on the verge of having a heart attack.  Part of the fun of sports is rooting against teams and arguing the merits of one player/team/event over another.  I married into a family of boston sports fans and we get into it all the time in good fun.  I enjoy this stuff.  i don't take it personally.  Think of me as smiling as I type.

But to me, conversation isn't much fun if everyone just asserts their own opinion and moves on.  I enjoy calling BS when I see it, and I expect others to do the same to me.  That's the conversation.  I respond to each thing that you say not because I hate your team (or you--hopefully you don't get that impression), but because I find it fun to exchange arguments on this meaningless stuff.  You know what I'd be doing right now if I weren't arguing about the Patriots?  I'd be reviewing 33,000 pages of documents looking for something important.

As far as whether it clouds my judgment, you may not believe me, but I think I'm actually pretty good at recognizing the difference.  I'm absolutely coming from a biased starting position--and I think recognizing this is essential to avoiding clouded judgment.  But that's why I try to make arguments based on facts and logic, rather than just asserting opinions, and respond to what others say in response.  That's why i try to get you to respond more directly sometimes--I think it cuts through the biases we both bring to the table and lets us test our opinions.  Sometimes that may come across as needling you, but I'm really just genuinely interested to see what's behind the opinion.

[boogielicious]

More trouble from the Onion.

NFL Investigating Whether Patriots Played Game With Properly Inflated Vince Wilfork http://onion.com/1C3hyik

https://twitter.com/OnionSports/status/557567644250165249/photo/1

[dsc123]

Fwiw, two sports scientists were interviewed by NPR today. They agreed that deflating is definitely an advantage in wet weather. They also said that the refs should be able to tell the difference, so it's unlikely that all the balls were deflated.

[saevel25]

We needs sports science on the case. How much extra gripping ability does lowering the PSI actually make. My best guess is it increased surface area because you can actually deform the ball. So I guess the best way would somehow measure the surface area. Maybe put some dye on the hands of a WR and see how much extra dye is left on the ball.

Depending on the amount of PSI lost, I am wondering if there is a significant advantage. Given it sounds like the scientist are just making conjecture at this point.

[dsc123]

We needs sports science on the case. How much extra gripping ability does lowering the PSI actually make. My best guess is it increased surface area because you can actually deform the ball. So I guess the best way would somehow measure the surface area. Maybe put some dye on the hands of a WR and see how much extra dye is left on the ball.  Depending on the amount of PSI lost, I am wondering if there is a significant advantage. Given it sounds like the scientist are just making conjecture at this point.

They mentioned what you said earlier, that more air makes the ball go farther, but said the benefit of going soft in wet weather was "definitely" more significant. But yeah, it wasn't like they performed some complicated study, they were generalizing.

[Gunther]

I have a football I chuck around with the kids. Under-inflating is definitely an advantage in throwing and catching although I can see where over-inflation could help with hang time. My hands aren't gigantic (pls don't infer anything else from that) so under-inflating allows me to grip it better.

[dsc123]

More from Aaron Rodgers.  I think it makes clear that he's talking about presenting inflated balls to the refs for approval, not altering them afterwards.  Also, he says he likes it that way because he has big hands and firm grip pressure.

Quote:

"The majority of quarterbacks, I would say more than half, are maybe on the other end of the spectrum and like it on the flatter side," he said on his show. "My belief is that there should be a minimum air-pressure requirement but not a maximum. There's no advantage, in my opinion -- we're not kicking the football -- there's no advantage in having a pumped-up football.

"There is, if you don't have strong grip pressure or smaller hands, an advantage to having a flat football, though, because that is easier to throw. So I think that is something they need to look at. There should be a minimum on the air pressure but not a maximum. Every game they're taking air out of the footballs I'm throwing, and I think that's a disadvantage for the way that I like them prepped.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12201369/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-upset-referees-take-air-footballs

[CarlSpackler]

I should get a fire starter badged just for kicking off this discussion. Sheesh!

[meenman]

I would say that this article pretty much sums it up:

Why it’s so easy to believe the Patriots deflated the footballs

By Mike Vaccaro

January 19, 2015 | 9:38pm

Modal Trigger

Bill Belichick celebrates with Tom Brady. Photo: AP

MORE FROM

MIKE VACCARO

Unbridled joy, utter agony: Seahawks-Packers had everything

Luck or skill? What the remaining QBs reveal about building a team

The Post ranks the best and worst coaches from the last 50 years

Rex Ryan -- the sly politician -- has fooled his next franchise

Urban Meyer's throwback triumph conjures a legend

Look, let’s start here: The Patriots and Colts could have been using a medicine ball Sunday evening in the AFC Championship Game, and there still wasn’t any way the Colts were going to come within three touchdowns of the Pats. They could’ve used one of those beach balls that occasionally work their way around a stadium: wouldn’t have mattered.

Let’s keep it going: The NFL could have allowed the Colts to use five downs every series, and it wouldn’t have made a difference. The league could have agreed to let the Colts use 13 players on both sides of the ball; maybe THAT would’ve kept the score within 14. Maybe.

Point? That was an epic mismatch, a meeting between one team worthy of a Super Bowl appearance and another team worthy of a firm handshake and a few attaboys for having gotten this far with such limited means. There isn’t a person alive who watched five minutes of that game and couldn’t identify the better team.

But.

Look, I’m sure the NFL will get its most effective investigative people on this case (NOTE TO BOSS: Please use blue sarcasm font here. Thank you), and will see if there really were some lazily inflated footballs in play during that game. Surely, there will be a reasonable explanation for this (make the blue extra bright, please), and then we will all go back to over-analyzing the Super Bowl.

But.

But you do have to ask yourself once in a while: Why is it always the Patriots? More to the point: Why is it ONLY the Patriots? Why is it, when something or someone runs afoul of the way things are supposed to be done on the field — or, as is the case here, for now, when something allegedly runs contrary — do things always seem to emanate back to Foxborough?

Look, the Patriots probably weren’t prosecuted nearly as much for Spygate as they should have been.

Part of that may be because it was, let’s be fair, unseemly that it was one of their own — or at least an excommunicated former foot soldier, Eric Mangini — who turned them in. We are all honorary Corleones, after all. Nobody likes it when omerta is broken. Nobody likes a rat.

Also: While there was some puzzlement when Roger Goodell thought it best to destroy the evidence procured from that investigation, those were different days and that was a different Goodell, still at the outset of his tenure, still assumed to be a beacon of integrity and fairness and not the arbitrary airhead he’s proven to be in the years since.

Modal Trigger

It’s easy to believe cheating allegations against the Patriots because of Bill Belichick’s history with bending the rules. Photo: AP

But the Patriots paid a price nonetheless. There is, for instance, a sizeable faction of football fans who attach asterisks to at least one of the Pats’ Super Bowl wins, if not all of them. And since much of the nation beyond New England falls into that faction, it’s a sizeable asterisk. Also, there were karmic consequences, as anyone who rejoiced at the law-and-order Giants’ dual schoolings of the Pats will gleefully relate.

More than that, though: The Pats are easy to pick on. Even when they follow the letter of the law — as they surely did last week with those exotic formations that nearly drove Baltimore coach John Harbaugh to trade in his winter jacket for a straitjacket — they only vaguely exist within the SPIRIT of the law. And look, when Nick Saban emerges as your most credible character witness …

The footballs? Honestly, shame on the Colts for even whispering this stuff aloud, because it wasn’t like the Colts were on the side of the angels by kickoff Sunday, not with one player back home facing a rape charge, another left home because he missed the team plane to Foxborough, and Trent Richardson sitting out what was surely his final game as a Colt. Then they went and got themselves good and stomped on in the Massachusetts rain.

But …

But we believe it COULD have happened, because it’s the Pats. Because it’s Bill Belichick. Because Spygate changed the conversation around them forever, fairly or no, and because what’s emerged is this melancholy, perpetual question: They’re so good as it is, why do they even need to dabble with the dark side? Why even put themselves in position for rebuke?

Why? Because they don’t care. Because they aren’t bothered if it infuriates the rest of football that Belichick had Tom Brady still passing  up 45-7, exposing him to calamity. Because that is the Patriot Way, and that’s all they care about.

They leave it to the rest of us to ponder the Patriot Why.

[Slice of Life]

Oh boy... http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=12202450

[dsc123]

Gronk didn't spike that many balls. I actually feel bad for Pats fans now. The next two weeks are going to be rough.