Deflation-gate

Maybe...That depends on exactly what the rule states. In my opinion, it should be completely appropriate to over-inflate the ball in the locker room with the expectation that the stadium temperature would be well below room temperature. However, the rules may or may not allow such a thing.ABE:What if the Pats inflated their balls with warm air with the goal of getting some 'natural deflation', while the Colts pumped theirs up with cold air. The Colts balls would then not deflate upon being brought out into the cold, while the Pats balls would deflate. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm sure what happens is that the referees deflate the balls when they arrive too high and add air when the balls are too low. If the balls arrive in spec, the referees most likely do nothing at all. What I am sure they do not do is let all of the air out and then re-inflate them. So the question of whether the air in the balls was at thermal equilibrium with the stadium temperature cannot be addressed by simply saying that the refs inflate the footballs. I don't know enough about the procedures to say whether they do or don't take them into account. Is that simply a recast of what you just said? Or perhaps the increased density/viscosity of the air produces some increased wind resistance. Yes, being extra flat would matter if indeed the kickers balls were deflated. In any event the kickers balls are handled differently from the rest of the team balls. Kickers can get balls inflated on the high end even if the quarterback wants something else.

That explanation still does not address my point.What temperature air is inside the balls when the referees get them? The temperature inside the ball is not necessarily at thermal equilibrium with the testing room and it would take some time (don't know how long) for them to reach equilibrium. The air inside the ball may stay hot or cold for some amount of time. If so, then the pressure in two sets of balls even after checking/deflating/topping off by the referees may have distinct trajectories once they get onto the field. In fact there may be a difference between balls checked early and late in the process. Nothing in the rules. But a discussion with a kicker or two that suggest that they can have input into the ball pressure. Apparently prior to 1999 there were no "K" balls and the kicker had to compromise with the quarterback on ball pressure. Now it seems that kickers can dictate their own ball pressure.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The temperature of the air inside the balls is a function of room temperature and the pumping equipment used to inflate them. As I understand it, the team has control of the balls up until a couple of hours before game time. The balls may or may not be stored in a heated room up until the time the referees get them. Your assumption is that the room involved is temperature controlled, but who says that must be the case? And if the ball is at a proper pressure, the referee does not do anything to the balls at all. The balls are checked once and then returned to the teams. I'm guessing that the time spent with the footballs by refs is as short as possible.I'm just throwing things out there that might explain the differences between the Colt's balls, the Patriots first 12 balls and the last 12 balls in a way that does not involve malfeasance. But perhaps there is no way to explain it.

Yes, that's one report. Unfortunately there are scores of bad info from "sources" and one might do well to ignore most of the stuff. There was one report earlier this week from a source that said that the refs did not even check the balls before the game.But if we are going to speculate that the detour was deliberate, we might as well speculate that there could have been any number of no good ball tamperers and horse thieving rustlers inside that bathroom before the balls ever got there.

Quite frankly, if this ends up being the issue that prevents resolving this sorry affair, it won't help the Patriots reputation in the least. Nothing in this story indicates that any official would have any motivation whatsoever to deflate a football. Steal one, yes, but tamper with a game ball? No.

What you've described isn't bumbling, but is instead an act of dishonesty on the part of a league employee. And that dishonesty has absolutely zero impact on the accuracy of the investigation. The employee is guilty of stealing footballs and not tampering with ball markings or ball pressure. Pretending otherwise is just throwing up chaff.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Isn't this a non-event for which the sole effect of reporting is bringing this sorry state of affairs back to the fore front of anyone who has forgotten about it?

http://www.foxnews.com/...-employees-probably-deflated-balls

quote:

---

NEW YORK — An NFL investigation released Wednesday said that New England Patriots employees likely deflated footballs used in the AFC Championship and that quarterback Tom Brady was probably "at least generally aware" of the rules violations

---

Some info that does not seem to have leaked before:

quote:

---

The NFL report said "it was more than probable" that Jim McNally, the officials locker room attendant, and John Jastremski, an equipment assistant for the Patriots, were involved in "a deliberate effort to release air" from the footballs after they were examined by the referee.

​

The report includes text messages between McNally and Jastremski that imply Brady was requesting footballs deflated below 12.5 pounds per square inch.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The numbers are in the report. There is a conclusory statement that the out of spec results is not explained by the ideal gas law and some evidence and analysis in the report to back up the claim. Quite frankly, my opinion is that there was never any evidence that the NFL was ignoring the effect of temperature, although some people in the press might have done so. I'm not convinced that this is an apt description of the employees attitudes. It appeared to me that the desired ball pressure was something less that 12.5 pounds. Given the data on the footballs it seems likely that every single ball was inflated to a pressure something close to the low end of that by the referees and that the equipment dudes wanted the pressure a bit lower than that. Further, I'm not convinced that the contempt shown in their conversation was not generated by beefs with the organization rather than with the officials. I highly doubt that anyone acted on their threats to inflate the footballs up to rubgy ball sizes.

As I read the article, the statement came from Tom Brady's agent. A statement from Tom himself might have more credibility, but the agent is free to be disappointed and to comment on the possibility of the report being off the mark, because the agent was likely not involved. It's kinda like your lawyer complaining about his client's conviction on weak evidence and a 'rush to justice' without opining about whether his client were actually guilty. Brady will not have that luxury if/when he offers a statement.The organization says they accept the report. So where is Brady's personal statement on the matter?Edited by NoNukes, : compare to lawyer

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for a civil matter. Only criminal matters where the outcome can be life or imprisonment is the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt.You can argue whether the pressures alone are enough. I've gone back and forth myself with whether the decision could be made on that basis alone. However the ball pressure is not the only evidence.Another way in which civil matters differ from criminal matters is that civil matters do not offer the defendant fifth amendment protection. It is entirely fair to draw inferences from lack of cooperation. But in this case, Brady has been caught making statements that are dissembling if not outright lies. Beyond that there are Brady's incriminating text messages to the equipment staff.I'm convinced that the ball pressure was tampered with after the referees checked the balls, and that alone is a breaking of the rules even if the balls were in spec after the tampering. Your question about re: 'how much tampering' is irrelevant. Even if the referees over-inflated the balls, the Patriots recourse would not be to take the balls into the bathroom afterwards and 'fix' them.

1. The evidence is not weak. Again the pressure measurement evidence is not all of the evidence. It is instead all of the evidence you seem willing to talk about. Yes, all of the evidence is circumstantial, but in my view the most likely explanation for all of that circumstantial evidence is cheating. All of the evidence for fusion in the sun is also circumstantial. 2. The reason why someone would reduce the pressure by less than one pound is because that results in the pressure they want and they cannot get what they want a legal manner. The refs might decide to set the pressure at something close to 13.0 despite what the ball dudes ask for because the refs expect conditions on the field to get colder during the first and second quarters of the game. The Patriots recourse in the face of such a decision is to suck it up until the temperature on the field gets colder. I don't find it impossible to believe that the someone would take steps to fix that even based on mere superstition on the possible advantages. 3. The way civil law works is that preponderance of the evidence is used to select winners and losers. Period. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but the Patriots are not kinda at fault. Most likely they cheated and the decision is that they did cheat. What you are saying here makes no sense. You are asking for a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence when you call for a 'slam dunk'. Most likely the Patriots cheated. And certainly they are going to be punished. You are entitled to that opinion. But I'm not aware of anyone using that principle in either an administrative or a civil criminal setting.

Why would or should the standard be different? The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard generally employed with the exception of criminal matters where the constitution requires something a higher standard and provides the defendant with more protections.Nothing unusual about the standard applied in this case.

Yes you do. That's total BS. If you want to say that the evidence against is weak to punish, then you ought to be talking about all of it. If you don't want to do that, then you should not be surprised or angered when I bring that point up. If all you are ready to talk about is the ball pressure, then your conclusion about the evidence being weak is premature. Proof is not required and is generally impossible to achieve anyway.The NFL is never going to be able to 'prove' anything. Even an admission by Brady would fall short of proof. But the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of saying that the Patriots tampered with the ball. And a preponderance of the evidence is all that's required to punish Brady.Insisting on a 'slam dunk' is requiring a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence.ABE: Sigh...The question here is whether there was any possible reason someone might reduce ball pressure by a fraction of a pound. You claimed not be able to think of one. A sufficient response to such a question is a plausible scenario.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.