Off Topic - Deflategate

[Crimsoncrew]

Are your seriously thinking that ball pressure had an outcome of this game? You are reaching my friend.

It doesn't matter. They didn't know going into it that they were going to blow out the Colts. If I study my ass off for a test, would have aced it, but I'm super driven so I still cheat on it and get caught, should I get a A on the test anyway?

We're never going to know how much deflating the balls created an advantage. But it's very clear the Pats believed it would create an advantage, or they wouldn't have done it. Breaking the rules while seeking competitive disadvantage is cheating, and should be punished regardless of whether there was a benefit, it was a minor benefit, etc.

Finally, MHSL's point is that football games can turn on single plays. Small events can totally swing things, particularly turnovers. By deflating the balls, the Pats were attempting to reduce the likelihood of a turnover. A single turnover early in that game could have easily meant a 14-point swing.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Questions: if the difference of the pressure of the ball is that signifigant then why didn't the refs notice this from the very first play? If they can't notice the pressure of a ball then who is to say that many teams have been doing this for a while and the Pats are the only one who got caught? Is is okay as long as a team doesn't get caught then?

No, it's not okay as long as you don't get caught. But what are you suggesting, not punishing cheaters because others probably cheated too?

Another school scenario: four college students plagiarize on their end-of-year term paper. They all get As. Two are caught and two are not. Should the two who are caught not be punished because others probably cheated as well? That's just a silly argument IMO.

I'd imagine teams and players bend or break the rules all the time. I don't think that's okay, but the only way to discourage that is to hammer the hell out of them when they are caught. And frankly, the fact that the Pats have been caught blatantly cheating at least twice suggests to me that they have done a lot more that hasn't been caught.

 

[darken65]

I didn't say they'd have lost. Outcome isn't just the result of a win or loss. My point was that some say that the punishment is affected by the fact that NE would have won anyway, and I agree they would have won but only because I think NE is better, not because it was a blow-out, and don't think them winning anyway has any relation to whether they should be punished.

I am seriously saying that if the balls were deflated to be more catchable (intent) and there was a catch on 3rd down, maybe he would have dropped it and then punted instead of catching it for a first - extending a TD or FG drive. Without that TD/FG, what happens then? I don't know. It could have been tied at halftime or worse.

I just said that the goal of cheating is to get an unfair advantage and cheating affects the game.

I am also saying that the Colts played differently being down by 10 than they would have being up by 4 or tied. That doesn't explain 28-0 in the second half, but who knows how they adjusted or what their game plan coming out of the half would have been. Were they more aggressive being down by a lot versus not?

Football is a very connected complex game. One thing affects another. If they had tried to connect and players kept dropping the regularly inflated footballs, would the Patriots have run more? Our 2011 NFCC game might have been different without the ST fumbles, would we say, "no way, did you see how close the game winning field goal was?" One play affects another, whether it's at the start or the end of a game.

JMO here but no butterfly effect from slighty deflated football.

 

[darken65]

Nope, it's wrong either way, but we can only punish who we catch, not be lenient because others might have done it un-caught. Improve how to catch it and punish others the same. Yes, it puts emphasis on not being caught, but isn't that this way any way? I mean, is not punishing it encourage compliance? I mean, there might be a problem with hard handed stubbornness, etc., but the moral equivalency issue is bad as well. What's wrong is wrong, cause is cause, and punishment should be just, punish everyone, improve your ways of enforcing rules, etc. It's not that difficult to know what is right, it's just hard to enforce it. But when you've caught someone, you don't let it go because it's hard to enforce.

True with this point but you didn't address the other questions.

 

[MHSL82]

It doesn't matter. They didn't know going into it that they were going to blow out the Colts. If I study my ass off for a test, would have aced it, but I'm super driven so I still cheat on it and get caught, should I get a A on the test anyway?

We're never going to know how much deflating the balls created an advantage. But it's very clear the Pats believed it would create an advantage, or they wouldn't have done it. Breaking the rules while seeking competitive disadvantage is cheating, and should be punished regardless of whether there was a benefit, it was a minor benefit, etc.

Finally, MHSL's point is that football games can turn on single plays. Small events can totally swing things, particularly turnovers. By deflating the balls, the Pats were attempting to reduce the likelihood of a turnover. A single turnover early in that game could have easily meant a 14-point swing.

Wow, nice and succinct summary. I'm not being a "ban them from the SB, death penalty, fire Tom/Bill forever" on this. It's just the shrugging the shoulders and saying, "no effect, next!" or "maybe everyone's doing it, so what are we to do?" I think simply not proposing to exile them forever or whatnot is enough to give nod to the "maybe others are getting away with it" stuff.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I didn't say they'd have lost. Outcome isn't just the result of a win or loss. My point was that some say that the punishment is affected by the fact that NE would have won anyway, and I agree they would have won but only because I think NE is better, not because it was a blow-out, and don't think them winning anyway has any relation to whether they should be punished.

I am seriously saying that if the balls were deflated to be more catchable (intent) and there was a catch on 3rd down, maybe he would have dropped it and then punted instead of catching it for a first - extending a TD or FG drive. Without that TD/FG, what happens then? I don't know. It could have been tied at halftime or worse.

I just said that the goal of cheating is to get an unfair advantage and cheating affects the game.

I am also saying that the Colts played differently being down by 10 than they would have being up by 4 or tied. That doesn't explain 28-0 in the second half, but who knows how they adjusted or what their game plan coming out of the half would have been. Were they more aggressive being down by a lot versus not?

Football is a very connected complex game. One thing affects another. If they had tried to connect and players kept dropping the regularly inflated footballs, would the Patriots have run more? Our 2011 NFCC game might have been different without the ST fumbles, would we say, "no way, did you see how close the game winning field goal was?" One play affects another, whether it's at the start or the end of a game.

Our 2011 NFCCG would have been different without the atrocious forward progress call overturning Bowman's forced fumble.

 

[MHSL82]

Our 2011 NFCCG would have been different without the atrocious forward progress call overturning Bowman's forced fumble.

Yep, why is it that Bowman keeps getting the short end of the stick (Seattle injury, forced fumble) on our games (except the Atlanta regular season INT return for a TD).

 

[tedman2012]

I agree. If you go by Scientific science , its a disadvantage what the Pats did to themselves

10.5 ball is easier to grip and hold onto . they say that a 1psi means it will go farther passing in the air . take a go cart everything is the same add 10 lbs to one the smaller one will win 99 % of the time . it is far harder to rip a flat 10.5 ball out vs a 12.5 ball .

pats can say all they want i'm sure aaron is also saying he didn't murder anyone . do i think a player or a coach did this no ! do i think they had it done yes . will they ever admit to it nope . it isn't in the pats to play fair .

btw the pats will never do something that hurts them .

 

[MHSL82]

10.5 ball is easier to grip and hold onto . they say that a 1psi means it will go farther passing in the air . take a go cart everything is the same add 10 lbs to one the smaller one will win 99 % of the time . it is far harder to rip a flat 10.5 ball out vs a 12.5 ball .

pats can say all they want i'm sure aaron is also saying he didn't murder anyone . do i think a player or a coach did this no ! do i think they had it done yes . will they ever admit to it nope . it isn't in the pats to play fair .

btw the pats will never do something that hurts them .

Tedman, we've already discussed this. We have determined that saying something, no matter how illogical or false, repeating it a few times, ignoring others, and saying what we claims is fact, is sufficient to overcome regular science. You have to appeal to Scientific science to get the real story.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

JMO here but no butterfly effect from slighty deflated football.

A slightly deflated ball reduces the likelihood of a fumble or INT. Again, if it wasn't worth doing, the Pats wouldn't have done it. Not saying the Colts win otherwise, just saying it's clear there is a reason the Pats did it.

 

[Band of Brothers]

No one is talking about the Seahawks? I thought the SB was coming up. Another year in the NFL where all the hype is on one side. I like my ballz pumped to the max. What a joke! Is this for real? Ball pumping. What about all the years when teams watered down fields before big games to stop a opposing RB? Let's play some football please. No more drama.

 

[purguy12]

No one is talking about the Seahawks? I thought the SB was coming up. Another year in the NFL where all the hype is on one side. I like my ballz pumped to the max. What a joke! Is this for real? Ball pumping. What about all the years when teams watered down fields before big games to stop a opposing RB? Let's play some football please. No more drama.

I agree. Deflated ball means nothing. Every QB does it. Some like it hard and some like it a little softer.

On to the Superbowl. Lets go Pats

 

[Crimsoncrew]

No one is talking about the Seahawks? I thought the SB was coming up. Another year in the NFL where all the hype is on one side. I like my ballz pumped to the max. What a joke! Is this for real? Ball pumping. What about all the years when teams watered down fields before big games to stop a opposing RB? Let's play some football please. No more drama.

Two crucial distinctions here:

1) It wasn't against the rules. So far as I know, there were no rules governing the quality of the playing field. Is it gamesmanship? Absolutely. Until the league passes a rule barring it, it's not cheating.

2) Both teams had to play in those conditions. One team may have been more familiar with those conditions, but it's not like the field dried off when the home team was on offense. Is a watered-down field for a slower, more physical team really all that different from a turf field for a fast team? Good GMs build their teams at least in part to take advantage of the inherent advantages in their home stadium.

I think a decent comparison here - though it's likely the benefit is less - is corked bats in baseball. It's tampering with your own equipment to gain an advantage over a team that abides by the rules.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I agree. Deflated ball means nothing. Every QB does it. Some like it hard and some like it a little softer.

On to the Superbowl. Lets go Pats

I thought no QBs did it because they all used the same balls. Or have you finally given up on that argument?

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest even that one or two other QBs do it, much less every QB?

 

[{+}Mother-Marge{+}]

No one is talking about the Seahawks? I thought the SB was coming up. Another year in the NFL where all the hype is on one side. I like my ballz pumped to the max. What a joke! Is this for real? Ball pumping. What about all the years when teams watered down fields before big games to stop a opposing RB? Let's play some football please. No more drama.

.......^^^^^^^^...........

 

[Crimsoncrew]

.......^^^^^^^^...........

To the shock of everyone.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm typically not a Florio fan, but he does a pretty good job of blowing Belichick's change of story out of the water here:

Belichick?s explanation on inflation raises new questions | ProFootballTalk

 

[optimist4720]

All the Pats had to do was to inflate the balls with warm/hot air initially to the official pressure of 12.5-13.5lbs at 100fF. Then wait to game time as the balls cool to 50F the pressure decreases to Brady's preffered pressure of 10.5 lbs. They didn't have to use any needles to deflate at all as the change in temp is more than enough to deflate the ball all on its own. All you have to do is inflate with warm air initially! For tires it 1-2lb per 10 deg. F. So for tires it's 1-2lbs./32lbs. Psi per 10deg. Temp. Change . Simplified to 3-6% PSI change per 10deg.F..So if you need an-approx. 2lbs deflation or -20% fill ball with hot air of 100F to 13.5 psi let cool to 50F and mother nature should adjust to -(3-6%)x(5)= 15-30% change in air pressure in the ball. With a little trial and error with refrigerated balls cooled I'm sure your could get a ball to the right targeted pressure just by inflating balls with hot air then letting them cool on their own with no needle manipulation at all. The intent is of course is to circumvent the rules but the method does not break the rules. The Devil is always in the details!

 

[optimist4720]

Some teams "cook the books". Other teams "cook the balls" . Obviously if you want to clean this up all you need to do is have the officials check the balls for constant pressure and temperature. Or institute ball check in as they do at 1.5 hrs before game time and recheck at 15 min. To game time to make sure ball pressure has not changed much like how baseball umpires toss out scuffed balls/damaged balls in baseball. Looks like trusting teams to manage their balls is not an option.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The best solution is just to have the officials be in control of the balls at all times. Inflate them all to the same range, rough them up all the same way. I think that's the way the league will have to go after this. Pitchers in baseball don't get to rough up their own balls. QBs will adjust.

Re: the cooling theory, my understanding was that the balls are typically kept in a warm container when not in play. Is that not correct?