Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deflation-gate
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 151 of 466 (758550)
05-28-2015 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by 1.61803
05-15-2015 9:31 AM


Re: Brady, Patriots Guilty!
1.61803 writes:
Hello Stile, sounds a bit like the Nuremberg defense to me.
"I was only following orders."
Yes, exactly.
That's exactly why the uppers should be fired and not the ones following orders.
We're not talking about basic human rights where anyone should know better.
We're talking about air pressure in a ball for a past time.
Nuremberg defense should be front and centre.
Or are you saying the Kingpin should never go to jail as long as underage teenagers do the dirty work?
It's all about context, of course. And the context here is that the uppers should be slapped much harder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by 1.61803, posted 05-15-2015 9:31 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by 1.61803, posted 05-28-2015 12:29 PM Stile has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 152 of 466 (758564)
05-28-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Stile
05-28-2015 10:35 AM


Re: Brady, Patriots Guilty!
Stile writes:
That's exactly why the uppers should be fired and not the ones following orders.
Following unlawful orders does not exonerate one from unlawfulness.
Stile writes:
We're not talking about basic human rights where anyone should know better.
We're talking about air pressure in a ball for a past time.
This is true.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Stile, posted 05-28-2015 10:35 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Stile, posted 05-31-2015 11:03 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 153 of 466 (758712)
05-31-2015 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by 1.61803
05-28-2015 12:29 PM


Re: Brady, Patriots Guilty!
1.61803 writes:
Following unlawful orders does not exonerate one from unlawfulness.
Completely agree.
I just don't think the little guys deserve to be fired over following these sorts of pressured orders in this sort of situation.
(If that's actually what happened, even...)
There are many ways to discipline an employee without firing them.
If someone's getting fired in this situation, I think it should be the ones calling the shots... the ones putting this ball in motion... the ones at the top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by 1.61803, posted 05-28-2015 12:29 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 154 of 466 (760002)
06-16-2015 3:30 PM


AEI Issues Report
AEI (American Enterprise Institute) has issued a report on deflategate: On the Wells report. The introduction includes this statement:
"When correct tests are performed, the evidence points to a conclusion that is inconsistent with the Wells findings. Our evidence suggests a specific sequence of events. The Wells report conclusions are likely incorrect, and a simple misunderstanding appears to have led the NFL to these incorrect conclusions."
What does AEI think went wrong? They think the Wells investigation used a flawed statistical model, and failed to consider explanations other than wrongdoing. One point made earlier in this thread was also made by the AEI report:
"The evidence we present points to a simpleand innocentexplanation for the change in pressure in the Patriots footballs. The Patriots balls were measured at the start of halftime, whereas the Colts balls were measured at the end of halftime, after sufficient time had passed for the balls to warm up and return to their pregame pressure."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by MrHambre, posted 06-18-2015 9:49 AM Percy has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 155 of 466 (760160)
06-18-2015 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
06-16-2015 3:30 PM


Re: AEI Issues Report
AEI (American Enterprise Institute) has issued a report on deflategate: On the Wells report.
I wonder whether the AEI isn't just the number-crunching cavalry that franchises call in when they're accused of wrondoing. The report proudly states that the AEI's analysis helped the Saints avoid penalties for their "bounty" program, wherein they were alleged to have injured opposing players at a higher rate than normal. I'm no statistician, and I guess the AEI is making the point that the statistical model used in the Wells report was too crude to support the conclusion that the acknowledged drop in pressure of the Patriots' footballs is evidence of wrongdoing. But I'd like to know if a more sigma-savvy reader would be able to establish whether the AEI's take is convincing.
This whole thing seemed like a moot point even when it happened. Only the most loyal Colts fan could argue that a few Psi could account for the humiliating blowout that the Pats pulled off in the AFC Championship game. However, what came to light when questions started flying made me think there might be at least a kernel of truth to the accusations.
I remember there was a controversy during the 2010 World Cup over the new design of the balls being used. A lot of players complained about the unpredictability of the footballs compared with the ones they used in league play. Certainly that might have affected some of the outcomes.
However, it's no secret that Brady had a lot of personal control over the state of the footballs used in games. Even after the Deflategate controversy had surfaced, Brady met with his equipment guy to discuss the Super Bowl balls. CNN reported: "Brady said he recalls requesting that Jastremski visiting him there (i.e. in the QB room) because he was busy preparing for the Super Bowl and wanted to discuss how the game balls would be prepared." Now I'm not saying that Brady did anything untoward in this meeting or any other, but it's obvious that he didn't think anything of discussing this kind of prep in private with his equipment handler, even as both were in the midst of a scandal over improprieties in ball preparation during the NFL playoffs. CNN again, quoting Brady, ellipses in original: "I didn't alter the ball in any way," he said. "I have a process that I go through before every game where I go in and pick the balls that I want... Our equipment guys do a great job of breaking the balls in ... When I pick those footballs out at that point, you know to me they're perfect. I don't want anyone touching the balls after that."
Is it just that American football tolerates a much greater degree of control and familiarity between the franchises and the game balls, even in the playoffs? Or do Brady and other quarterbacks exploit their access to the equipment for an advantage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 06-16-2015 3:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 06-18-2015 4:02 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 06-19-2015 8:01 AM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 156 of 466 (760217)
06-18-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by MrHambre
06-18-2015 9:49 AM


Re: AEI Issues Report
I'm not a football fan but Percy's post was a relief for some reason. From the beginning it just seemed like Why would anyone risk so much on tampering with the footballs? They're subjected to scrutiny and testing and why risk it? But OK so they did and that was that but now there's this new study and I'm back to believing they're innocent. Now you say that Brady always keeps a close eye on the condition of the balls, which is interesting information, whoda thunk such details are so important. But that suggests potential guilt to you. But as you say "it's no secret" he had a lot of control, so it seems to me that makes it MORE likely he wouldn't risk doing something so obvious to jeopardize his reputation.
You can ignore me now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by MrHambre, posted 06-18-2015 9:49 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 157 of 466 (760253)
06-19-2015 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by MrHambre
06-18-2015 9:49 AM


Re: AEI Issues Report
MrHambre writes:
I'm no statistician, and I guess the AEI is making the point that the statistical model used in the Wells report was too crude to support the conclusion that the acknowledged drop in pressure of the Patriots' footballs is evidence of wrongdoing.
Actually, AEI made a slightly different point. They said that the statistical model presented in the Wells report was fine, but that it was not the statistical model actually used. AEI surmised that the Wells report had misapplied their model. When AEI used the same model and applied it across all possible permutations of gauges they found that it provided results that did not support the report's conclusions.
Is it just that American football tolerates a much greater degree of control and familiarity between the franchises and the game balls, even in the playoffs? Or do Brady and other quarterbacks exploit their access to the equipment for an advantage?
Policies have varied over time. Until around 15 years ago the NFL provided the game balls, but year after year quarterbacks would complain about using new insufficiently prepped footballs on game day, and eventually the NFL changed the rules so that the teams provided their own game balls, with the referees inspecting them and adjusting the inflation pressure prior to the game. The main concern I hear voiced by quarterbacks is a good solid grip.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by MrHambre, posted 06-18-2015 9:49 AM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 466 (760563)
06-23-2015 9:07 AM


Brady Hearing is Today
The Brady hearing before NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is today at 9:30 AM in New York City. Results likely won't be known for a few weeks.
Science News chimed in with a brief summary article last week: Deflategate favored foul play over science
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 466 (763115)
07-21-2015 10:08 AM


Yet Another Possible Outcome?
In Today's ESPN staff writer Mike Reiss mentions a third possible outcome of Brady's appeal of his four game suspension for deflating footballs (What we'll learn about top NFL decision-makers with Tom Brady appeal ruling). Everyone has been considering only these outcomes:
  1. Keep the suspension at four games
  2. Reduce the suspension to three, two or one game
  3. Overturn the suspension
But Reiss mentions yet another possibility: Table the suspension "to gather more information on air pressure in footballs." He goes on:
Reiss writes:
This would be an acknowledgment that there simply isn’t enough evidence in the Wells report to conclude Brady is guilty. Take away rooting interest, and look solely at the available information and the league’s (lack of) history with gauging air pressure in footballs, and any NFL player or team official should be concerned that the league could come down this hard.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 160 of 466 (763473)
07-25-2015 9:34 AM


Black and White Outlook
To NoNukes:
I said this in Message 73 of the What's the deal with motor vehicle violations? thread:
Percy writes:
To me your views on the law seem very rigid and unnuanced, but if you don't think the views on interpretation of the law that you've expressed in this thread are bit strong on the black and white side of things (very similar to the views you expressed in the deflate-gate thread where you allowed no room for letting the punishment be commensurate with the evidence), then you only need explain how that view is in error.
NoNukes responded in Message 75:
NoNukes writes:
Unless you've got something accurate to say about my arguments in that thread, perhaps you ought to stick with the facts.
And then later in Message 80:
NoNukes writes:
I invite you to back up what I said in that thread and I will comment, otherwise I am not going to bother with the thread until something substantial happens with Brady and the NFL.
So here in this thread please see Message 112 where you said:
NoNukes writes:
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.
Had the preponderance of the evidence standard yielded a slam dunk then fine,
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.
and the punishment has to reflect that.
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.
Look at how you began your argument: "The way civil law works is that preponderance of the evidence is used to select winners and losers. Period." You include no room for the strength of the evidence, arguing against my claim that the punishment has to fit the evidence. Civil awards frequently include degree of culpability based upon strength of the evidence, but you want to ignore that. Your world is very black and white.
We discussed this a bit more, and I finally replied in Message 126:
Percy writes:
NoNukes writes:
Preponderance of the evidence (or more likely than not) also happens to be exactly the same standard that gets used daily in civil trials throughout the US. It is the same standard used to find OJ responsible for the wrongful death of his wife. So no it is not an excuse for anything. The choice to use the standard was made well before this incident.
You're repeating your old argument as if it hadn't already been rebutted. You'd like it just to be black and white, yes and no, as if the particulars and quality of the evidence don't matter. But they do, even in civil court, which this isn't yet. The punishments are out of all proportion to the evidence.
You never responded.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add salutation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 3:29 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 466 (763495)
07-25-2015 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
07-25-2015 9:34 AM


Re: Black and White Outlook
Look at how you began your argument: "The way civil law works is that preponderance of the evidence is used to select winners and losers. Period."
Let's note here that this part of the discussion is solely about the verdict and not the punishment. So it does not back up your statements about whether I let punishment fit the evidence. This is exactly the complaint I raised about your statement in the other thread.
My disagreement amount the standard for evidence is simply that I believe the preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient standard for deciding any civil matter. You don't. But given that the same standard is used for civil matters involving more egregious matters and more serious potential punishments, I don't see a particular reason why the NFL cannot use it in this case. In fact the agreement with the players spells out the standard. If the case is appealed, a court will apply the same standard.
You disagree, but I don't see anything particularly principled in your disagreement or that there is anything black or white in my saying that the standard is fine. Your claim as I recall was that preponderance of the evidence is an excuse for making decisions on shoddy evidence.
It's also quite obvious that we also disagree about the state of the evidence, but that is nothing to complain about either. It is instead the point of the debate.
Have you got anything better to back up your accusation?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 9:56 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 162 of 466 (763510)
07-26-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 3:29 PM


Re: Black and White Outlook
NoNukes writes:
Let's note here that this part of the discussion is solely about the verdict and not the punishment. So it does not back up your statements about whether I let punishment fit the evidence. This is exactly the complaint I raised about your statement in the other thread.
You've got some things wrong or maybe there's been a misunderstanding. It might be better to just address the actual point of difference. My point was that the punishment is uncommensurate with the evidence. In Message 126 I said:
Percy in Message 126 writes:
You'd like it just to be black and white, yes and no, as if the particulars and quality of the evidence don't matter. But they do, even in civil court, which this isn't yet. The punishments are out of all proportion to the evidence.
Here are your points that were incorrect:
My disagreement amount the standard for evidence is simply that I believe the preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient standard for deciding any civil matter. You don't.
This is incorrect. You're probably thinking of some early comments I made about the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, which uses the same standard as civil matters. I did question whether that was the best standard for these two groups to use. I in no way questioned that standard for civil matters.
Your claim as I recall was that preponderance of the evidence is an excuse for making decisions on shoddy evidence.
Not shoddy evidence - insufficient evidence. And I said it about the process the NFL attempted (unsuccessfully) to employ, not the process used in the civil courts. I was not making a comment about using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court, which I think is fine.
It seems possible that the problem is that you thought I was criticizing the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used by civil courts? I wasn't. I was criticizing the way the NFL employed that standard to mete out unfair punishments.
If ball inflation pressure were really such a critical issue then the pressure gauges would be validated, calibrated and tested, referees would be trained, and pre-game checks of the gauges would be employed. That they were using two different gauges that were 0.4 psi different speaks to how low a priority the NFL actually places on ball inflation pressure. To hand out such severe punishments on such flimsy and questionable evidence for something the NFL gives such a low priority makes no sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 3:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 12:40 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 466 (763519)
07-26-2015 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
07-26-2015 9:56 AM


Re: Black and White Outlook
NoNukes writes:
My disagreement amount the standard for evidence is simply that I believe the preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient standard for deciding any civil matter. You don't.
This is incorrect. You're probably thinking of some early comments I made about the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, which uses the same standard as civil matters. I did question whether that was the best standard for these two groups to use. I in no way questioned that standard for civil matters.
Then it is a mystery to me why you are you quoting statements were I talk specifically about the standard of evidence. My impression is exactly as you say, but the impression comes from you.
Look if the evidence is insufficient, which is what our debate is primarily about, then Brady shouldn't be found guilty and shouldn't be punished. If the evidence is sufficient, then he will be found guilty and he may be punished in some way. I think there is sufficient evidence, so I don't have any problem with him being punished. You may feel that you've provided enough argument to be convincing that there is insufficient evidence but I don't agree with that.
Now how you get from that to my refusing to 'let the punishment fit the evidence' is something only you understand so far. It appears that you actually mean something like 'let the verdict fit the evidence' which is of course something I agree entirely with. And since there does not seem to be any issue about the preponderance of the evidence standard, perhaps you can better explain what your beef is. I'm not sure I get it even after reading your last two posts.
It appears to me that we disagree about a couple of things including the role of evidence other than ball pressure. I'll admit that I find your stance on that particular issue strange, and it is likely that we will never agree on that.
If ball inflation pressure were really such a critical issue then the pressure gauges would be validated, calibrated and tested, referees would be trained, and pre-game checks of the gauges would be employed. That they were using two different gauges that were 0.4 psi different speaks to how low a priority the NFL actually places on ball inflation pressure.
Okay... You seem to be adding in yet another issue on top of the evidence issue. Since what I am doing here is responding to a completely different accusation from you, I'll leave the part about whether or not the NFL really cares about ball pressure tampering to another day.
To hand out such severe punishments on such flimsy and questionable evidence for something the NFL gives such a low priority makes no sense
Again, the quality of the evidence is something we disagree on, and not, apparently, the standard of evidence.
ABE:
I took another look at your post.
Percy writes:
and the punishment has to reflect that.
NN writes:
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.
Brady's punishment is too harsh by any measure, but IMO primarily by the punishments others have gotten for beating their kids and wives and for other criminal matters. Yes we do scale civil awards, but generally based on culpability rather than on the standard of proof, and we really haven't even discussed what the punishment should be. It still seems that you are arguing about the verdict rather than the punishment.
I noted that your opinion was your opinion and according to you I did not even respond the next time you brought the point up. What's your complaint? That I'm not convinced?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 9:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 5:30 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 164 of 466 (763540)
07-26-2015 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by NoNukes
07-26-2015 12:40 PM


Re: Black and White Outlook
NoNukes writes:
Look if the evidence is insufficient, which is what our debate is primarily about, then Brady shouldn't be found guilty...
But Brady wasn't found guilty. Guilty is a criminal court designation. In civil matters you either find for the plaintiff or for the defendant. There is no guilt or innocence. Brady was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have been at least generally aware that the balls were being deflated. Given this somewhat weak and equivocal finding, the punishment is way beyond the pale. If he had instead been found guilty of deflating footballs beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard for guilt, then the punishment would make perfect sense.
The NFL thinks they found Brady guilty despite attempting to employ an essentially civil process, and this confusion is part of why I think the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA should try to develop more appropriate criteria.
I think there is sufficient evidence, so I don't have any problem with him being punished.
But you're going by the Wells report, which says only that there was a "preponderance of the evidence." The evidence does not rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt," yet you're comfortable with Brady being punished as if this higher standard had been met and he was actually guilty of something.
Now how you get from that to my refusing to 'let the punishment fit the evidence' is something only you understand so far. It appears that you actually mean something like 'let the verdict fit the evidence' which is of course something I agree entirely with.
It's like we're speaking different languages. I definitely mean precisely what I said, that the punishment should be appropriate to the evidence. If the NFL has Brady dead to rights deflating footballs, throw the book at him, which is what a 4-game suspension represents. But they don't have that. They have a "preponderance of the evidence" that Brady was "generally aware."
And if the NFL someday catches a quarterback in the act of actually deflating footballs, where do they go after giving Brady 4 games for the weaselly evidence of deflate-gate? Do they suspend this quarterback for 8 games? That would be absurd.
If ball inflation pressure were really such a critical issue then the pressure gauges would be validated, calibrated and tested, referees would be trained, and pre-game checks of the gauges would be employed. That they were using two different gauges that were 0.4 psi different speaks to how low a priority the NFL actually places on ball inflation pressure.
Okay... You seem to be adding in yet another issue on top of the evidence issue. Since what I am doing here is responding to a completely different accusation from you, I'll leave the part about whether or not the NFL really cares about ball pressure tampering to another day.
It was an attempt to return to discussing the actual topic. I apologize.
Brady's punishment is too harsh by any measure,...
Didn't see that one coming.
Yes we do scale civil awards,...
Nor that one.
...but generally based on culpability rather than on the standard of proof,...
Culpability isn't in part a function of evidence? And are you implying there's more than one kind of standard of proof in civil cases? More than just a "preponderance of evidence?"
It still seems that you are arguing about the verdict rather than the punishment.
It seems to me that I've been very clear in talking about both, that a verdict of a "preponderance of the evidence" showing that Brady was "generally aware" does not merit a punishment of four games.
I noted that your opinion was your opinion and according to you I did not even respond the next time you brought the point up. What's your complaint? That I'm not convinced?
This is unintelligible, I'm not going to try to untangle it, except to say that all I said was that you didn't respond to Message 126.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 12:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2015 2:57 PM Percy has replied
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2015 3:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 165 of 466 (765328)
07-27-2015 12:14 PM


NFL Revises Policies Regarding Pressure and Handling of Footballs
NFL Nation's Kevin Seifert today reports the NFL has "produced a detailed process for measuring pregame football inflation, fortified its chain of custody for balls during warm-ups and arranged for random halftime and postgame testing." See Inside Slant: NFL policy changes undermine Tom Brady suspension. The article goes on to note that the changes weaken the NFL's case against Brady since it represents an implicit admission that the previous procedures were inadequate.
The actual NFL process has not been made public yet, but the important details seem to be summarized in the above referenced article and in NFL to implement overhauled procedures for football inspections.
About the new random checking of pressure at halftime and after the game, the articles didn't mention anything about how they would account for the effects of differences between inside and outside air temperatures, changing temperatures during the game, the amount of time it takes a ball to react to a change in ambient air temperature, and changes in barometric pressure over time, all of which affect measured ball pressure.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2015 3:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 174 by xongsmith, posted 07-28-2015 12:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024