Deflation-gate

I try, but in this case, Theodoric convinced me to check with even having to impute motives to me.As for Wells statements about how fast or slowly the balls would warm up, it appears that he has at least heard of that gas law nobody in the NFL is supposed to know about. What is pretty clear is that the amount of time during which these measurements took place is extremely brief. You indicated that only 15 minutes was available. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yeah, right. I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement of your error about whether Brady's hearing before Goodell was arbitration.Your big problem is that you keep making the same mistakes, often repeating claims rebutted long ago. Come up to speed or get off the track. Not only can you do that, it's been done. The analysis is statistical, just as Exponent's was except that they made critical errors. Your stuff is all laden with misinterpretations of my stuff, and either your memory or your thoroughness is severely impaired, because just a few minutes after my quote of NFL vice-president Troy Vincent testifying he never knew football pressure varied with temperature (Message 371) you criticize me for taking the position that the NFL didn't understand that football pressure varies with temperature.And if you think Goodell has been demonstrating good managerial temperament in his handling of player discipline and the resulting court cases, you and everyone who shares your view can meet in a phone booth.--Percy

You make it sound as I am disputing that there is some sort of evidence.
If you look back I said we do not know what the measurements were for each ball. Yes we know what the referee claims to remember, but as I said there is no documentation.
The evidence there is is extremely lacking to the point of being almost worthless.
The Wells report talks of two gauges also. Do we just accept that they were calibrated to report the same measurements? Do we accept that each ball was measured with the same gauge each time?
The NFL's evidence is laughable.

The bargaining agreement contains an arbitration procedure described in an early part of the document and this Article 46 Commissioners Discipline Proceeding which explicitly allows the Commissioner to hold a hearing at which no outside arbitrator is present. In fact, the Commissioner is specifically called out as being allowed to serve as the Hearing Officer at his sole discretion.Now you can call that procedure arbitration if you like, but the procedure described in Article 46 is completely distinct from what people would call arbitration. The procedure is more reminiscent of the procedure any corporation would use if it were to punish an employee via an internal hearing. There is no provision to appeal the results of that hearing to an arbitrator.Assuming that we agree with all of that, why are we quibbling about my not referring to the procedure as an arbitration hearing, particularly when the hearing officer is NFL management? Article 46 calls the procedure a hearing. I do too.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't intend to repeat those old discussions. I recall them as quite unpleasant.

Concerning accuracy and having the available facts at hand? Not even close. You do seem to try very hard to apply logic ad absurdum in a search of meaningless Talmudic weakness's in people's arguments. I'll have to guess what you're referring to here. You questioned my objectivity by accusing me of being too emotionally invested. I reject that accusation and point out that I have facts I continually reference and that I can remember from one post to the next. But you have a big emotional investment in being right on an issue where you're unwilling to put in the necessary work to learn the relevant facts. You sure are consistently out in left field. There was no claim that the Wells Report ignored the gas law. How could Wells ignore the gas law, given how much it was discussed after the Patriots were accused of deflating footballs? I brought it up mere days after the AFC championship game, as did numerous other people. How could you even hint that there's a claim that Wells hadn't heard of the gas law given how many times I've mentioned the Exponent analysis in the Wells report?The actual claim I think you're trying to bring to mind is how obvious it is that before the AFC championship game the NFL had no clue that football pressure varies with temperature. Certainly their instructions to referees included no hint of such knowledge, and Troy Vincent testified as much at one point.Subsequently, Exponent's statistical analysis in the Wells Report was shown to contain fatal errors. Wells said checking Patriot football pressures took 4-5 minutes, but in the same sentence he said the footballs would reach ambient temperature in only 2-4 minutes, which is clearly wrong. I don't think it's possible to know which information in the Wells report can be relied upon. Don't call it my indication. Halftime is supposed to be 15 minutes. I do recall that the start of the second half was delayed, I didn't notice by how much. Jim Nantz and Phil Sims called the game on TV, and they commented that they didn't know what the delay was about, but that the referees seemed to be trying to make sure the right footballs got into play. The referees did have both teams' footballs in the same room at the same time, which normally never happens, so maybe there was some confusion about whose balls were who's.Whatever else the referees had to do at halftime, we know it involved this:

• Measure and record 11 Patriot football pressures with two different gauges.
• Reinflate the Patriot footballs to 13 PSI.
• Measure and record 4 Colt football pressures with two different gauges.

It's interesting to note that since the Patriot footballs were likely somewhere between 50° and 60° when they were reinflated to 13 PSI, had they been left indoors and their pressures checked a half hour later they would have again tested out of range, but this time on the high side.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, punctuation.

Well, that's some nice dissembling there. Everyone and his mother, including the NFL and the judge, called it arbitration, but I guess I won't be holding my breath for the admission of error.--Percy

I recall them the same way, but if you don't intend to repeat them then don't restate old assertions that have already been rebutted. I'm not a big fan of your, "I don't recall the discussion about this issue, so I think I'll state this as a fact again."--Percy

Dissembling means lying, Percy. Is that really a justified accusation? I really don't give a crap what the hearing was called by others. The hearing was governed under Article 46 of the agreement which covers matters that are separate from those which the arbitration portions of the agreement cover.Does article 46 describe anything remotely resembling arbitration?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, dissembling doesn't mean lying, and I don't think you're dissembling outward but inward to convince yourself of the truth of a belief shared by no one else except Rush Limbaugh that I know of. Almost no one else doubts or ever doubted that it was arbitration, including the NFL, NFLPA and the judges. If you want to continue arguing the point I'll leave you to your windmill.--Percy

In fact, dissembling is lying, and accusations of dissembling are accusations of lying. This was an argument ended long ago that you revived for some reason. Like most of that old stuff, I had no desire to go through it again. Apparently that old argument still irks you a bit.In any event, at the time of the discussion there was a lot of legal discussion about Article 46 and the poor position that the NFPLA had left the players in by agreeing to it. I'm sure I cited at least some of that.Almost every definition of arbitration I can find requires that a dispute be submitted to an independent third party. That definition does not seem consistent with a procedure that allows the NFL commissioner to be decide the issue. Yet article 46 does exactly that. I recall you fumbling around trying to explain why that would be allowed without much success. I'm also sure that the point of the discussion distinguishing the Article 46 was not merely the name, but to point out the players had agreed to something far less than they would receive with an outside arbitrator.The name itself isn't of all that much importance. I'm certainly not trying to convince you not to use the term arbitration. But none of that changes a single sentence of Article 46 or the fact that the players agreed to the contents.

response to old post deletedEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dissembling isn't lying, it's giving things a false appearance. You're trying to construct a characterization of events and arguments that gives a false picture that you weren't wrong. But your position is hopeless and silly. To repeat, the NFL, NFLPA and the judges all think it's arbitration. They've cited arbitration cases and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in their briefs, in open court, and in legal rulings. Give it up. For some reason? You don't remember the reason? It must be nice to always live in the moment with recent yesterdays so far away they're not even a distant memory. You said, "When my errors are pointed out, I have no problem acknowledging them." I pointed out that this wasn't true by mentioning one of your more glaring errors, asserting that the Brady hearing before Goodell wasn't arbitration.I wasn't reviving discussion about arbitration. I was responding to your soliloquy of how measured and reasonable you are by proving your claim wrong that you "have no problem acknowledging" your errors. You're proving yourself wrong right now, showing that you definitely do have major problems acknowledging your errors. You instead go into "keep arguing the point no matter how ludicrous" mode.--Percy

This is a difference of opinion and not, IMO, an error. The fact that you disagree does not make it an error. The fact that you make a vehement argument does not mean that you've rebutted my point.

What you've just described is lying. And in any event, it does not describe my position on the nature of the proceedings. They involved procedure is described in Article 46, and my reasoning behind not calling the proceedings arbitration was based on the distinctions between arbitration and Article 46.Again, those distinctions exist regardless of what you call the procedure. Your insistence on making this about the name only is dissembling. Only issues contained in the bargaining agreement, and of course mentioned elsewhere as well. So, no they are not all in my head. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.