Deflation-gate

Yes. Of course in doing so, you are making that call on the outcome of the case. I am not doing that here. I suspect it also helps that I don't care one way or the other about the New England Patriots. I have absolutely no investment in the outcome of the case.But beyond that, I understand the reasons why the court system works the way it does, and allowing litigants to flaunt court orders does not lead to a court system that is likely to be able to dispense justice or law. I don't see any real reason why Brady cannot follow the same law everyone else has to follow. Civil courts handle secrets far more valuable than those of Brady's and the secrets don't get out despite their tremendous value. Is the risk zero? No. But does is it dwarfed by the risk of getting sanctioned in court? Possibly. It's also possible that the evidence on the phone was exculpatory. Was destroying case winning evidence worth flaunting a court order? That seems unlikely to me. You talked about hacking via the internet, so that's what I addressed. The problem is that there should not be a target for hacking. Of course mistakes are possible, but courts routinely deal with sealed evidence, and it is extremely rare that such evidence would ever make it onto an internet accessible computer. And only then would it be hacked. No the risks are not zero, but they are small enough that every other litigant can work within the system with secrets more valuable than the ones we are talking about here. If that was how things worked in civil cases, wouldn't litigants always see the other sides trade secrets despite the fact that they are being sealed so they won't see them. No Percy, that is not how things work.But couldn't the powerful NFL simply rig things so that they got their own man on the inside? Yeah, in a movie.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Right, maybe it's not outrage. I believe that the fight is primarily about the collective bargaining agreement, and in particular, the commissioner's powers to regulate things including player conduct. I think we can agree that this case is a major test of that section of the agreement that we've debated so often. I suggest that this section of the agreement was purposefully negotiated by the NFL in order to increase management's power. I think my suggestion makes some sense in light of the controversy over the NFL commissioner limits under the previous agreement.But yeah, I'm sure I don't read as much of the media coverage as you do. But I also suspect that we do view differently what we read. Your statements regarding the judges folly are a prime example of that.

My personal opinion is that your conclusion of outrage (outraged to the point of not having managerial temperment) was unfounded. I suppose I could have expressed myself in stronger terms, because apparently, choosing to accept your expression that outrage might not be the only answer just opened me up to more criticism. Well, at least I tried... I don't see why, given other possibilities that don't require it, you have to make denigrating remarks about one party or the other. Is that better?Beyond that, I think asking for sources is always legit. Yes, that might happen.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. Now did he manage to find balls that did not drop 2 PSI? Because let's recall that one teams balls did drop and one team's did not. In short, did the 7th grader really collect evidence that refutes deflate gate?I mean we all know that the balls on the field were flatter when cold. Percy has advanced a proposition that explains how one team's balls could okay at half time while the NE balls did not based on the time spent in the warm environment. I believe he suggests that the NE balls were measured first giving the other balls time to warm up. The experiment described here does not actually test Percy's proposition or any other proposition that would explain the systematic difference between the two sets of measurements.I know it is popular to assume that the NFL does not know that air pressure would decrease in cold weather, but I don't buy that. Most of the involved people have been around footballs forever. I might be willing to believe that the NFL did not take into account the fact that the balls were warming up during the measurement. But an experiment that does not deal with the difference between the two sets of balls does not really demonstrate anything in my view.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"We have no idea what the starting PSI was for all the balls at the game, or the ending PSI for all the balls."With respect to the game balls, we do know the pressures of all of the balls as measured by the referees as prior to game time and at half time. The pressure of the balls at the end of the game would be irrelevant. I am not sure what point you are making.

How long after leaving the field did it take to measure pressure in the first and last football? How gradually?How long did this take? In what order were the measurements taken? How long did the balls sit before any measurement was taken? You are making lots of assumptions about what actually happened while concluding that the referees were idiots.One thing we can tell is that the amount of time allowed before measuring the balls was enough to allow one set of balls to measure very close to its initial pressure. Your assumption is that that time was not long enough to allow the Patriot balls to do the same. Is that really true? Does it really take more than a few minutes to measure the pressure in 12 footballs using two gauges? That does not seem obvious to me. They haven't said anything at all. Your conclusion about why is nothing but speculation. I have some suspicions that the reasons for destroying the records might have something to do with the court case, but I am not going to state a conclusion based on knowing absolutely nothing. Isn't the only relevant point what happens to the balls in the conditions that existed. Who cares what happens in more extreme weather.We have reason to believe that half time was plenty long enough for at least one set of balls to reach equilibrium. Your speculation is that the time was not long enough for both sets and that the referees missed that. You simply do not know. You don't really even know which balls were measured first. Or whether either set was completely measured before the other. Perhaps I am just responding to your expressed hatred for all things NFL and your vilification of people while not actually knowing diddly, Percy. Despite having my own opinion on whether Brady cheated, nothing he has done has affected the fortunes of the team or teams that I root for. I just don't have the emotional investment you have in this case.

Yes. The pressures of all 24 of the game balls were measured and recorded prior to game time and again at half time. The questions left surround the explanation for the discrepancies between the initial measurements and the ones taken at half time. All of those measurements were part of the Wells report. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I may be remembering incorrectly and it might be that we have only the word of the officials as to the measurements of the footballs. I cannot find the Wells report, but all of the commentary I see is as you describe it. The individual pressures of the balls were not recorded but were only reported by the refs. I believe it is also the case that not all of the other team's balls were measured.But even that does not support a statement that we don't know the pressure of the balls before the game.The discussion on Wikipedia confirms that the initial readings were not logged.

quote:

---

The Wells report physics argument, based on multiple experiments as well as theoretical modeling, runs as follows.[8]:Appendix 1, 63-68 Several conjectured sources of variability (differences in game use, alleged "vigorous rubbing" by the Patriots before play, leakage during the game, and variations in football volume) can be set aside as they have no discernable effect. Based on documented habit, as well as the recollections of referee Walt Anderson, the Patriots balls were (as usual) set around 12.5 psi, and the Colts balls around 13.0 psi, before their games. The ideal gas law shows that footballs inflated in a warm environment will drop in pressure in a cold environment; however, a football is not a thermos, and the footballs would have rapidly started to re-inflate when taken to the officials' locker room for halftime testing. (Wells estimates that the Patriots balls had 2-4 minutes to repressurize before measurements began; the measurements themselves spanned an estimated 4-5 minutes.[8]:70)

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Or perhaps I don't live and breathe the details like you do. When my errors are pointed out, I have no problem acknowledging them. But at some point I understand that everything I say that disagrees with you will draw an insult even when I am careful to indicate a simple difference of opinion.And I see that I have allowed myself to be drawn back into a discussion that is nothing more than a rehash of old points. I admit not remembering some of that stuff terribly well; at least not as well as when I was going point for point with you months ago. I apologize for not holding up my end. Actually, you cannot do that. What you are doing when you make such an assumption is to declare that all discrepancies are the result of ball temperature changes, when in fact that is the issue being argued. And the judges are stupid, the NFL does not understand that footballs lower pressure in low temp, and the commissioner is outraged beyond having a managerial temperment, etc. Your posts are all laden with this stuff.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We can question the quality of the evidence, but not the existence of the evidence. Yes it is the case that the indication of the ball pressure is based on the report of the referees. That is not the same as having no indication whatsoever.

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.

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.

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.