So much for "deflategate"

[Chawks1]

All these say is that the balls were approved by the refs prior to the game, it doesn't explain how 11 of 12 balls magically lost exactly 2 lbs of PSI each by the time they got to the field two hours later.

Read them again.

The first one clearly states that refs do not log the PSI. So we have no idea what the PSI was during and immediately after the refs checked the balls. They were just approved for play.

Therefore, you also can't say how many lbs of PSI were lost.

OK. I'll bite.

If the refs approved the balls without measuring PSI, then the Patriot's still broke the rules by giving them balls to approve that weren't legal. Either way, it looks bad for you.

This version makes the refs look bad as well, I'll give you that. But the league still needs to get to the bottom of how the balls in the first half weren't legal.

Frankly I don't really care anymore. This whole thing has sucked some of the fun right out of the SB, a time when we should be talking about my team.

One thing we all know for sure, it's going to go back to the way it was which is the league provides the balls.

It doesn't make the Pats look bad at all. Read the rule book. The onus is 100% on the officials to make sure the balls are properly inflated and approved for play.

Who said the refs log the PSI? They just make sure the ball is between 12.5 and 13.5. Then they mark the ball approved, toss in a bag hand it to the ball boy. Who then goes to the bathroom and deflates it to Brady's specs. What's so hard to figure out here? And why are you at our site trying to convince us? We don't believe you guys or Belichicks science and we don't care. Go to the Colts web site.

 

[PowerRun]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

 

[Laloosh]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

It was enough of a psi difference for the league to hire investigators. I'm sure good old Rog has a hardon for pissing off his best friend among the owners to approve an investigation over nothing. Go buy a clue and stop polluting our boards.

 

[PowerRun]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

It was enough of a psi difference for the league to hire investigators. I'm sure good old Rog has a hardon for pissing off his best friend among the owners to approve an investigation over nothing. Go buy a clue and stop polluting our boards.

Roger, former employee of the Jets, and the guy who fined the team and stole our first round draft pick for something that every team was doing at the time and provided no competitive advantage.

K.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

It was obviously enough for the refs to pump the balls back up to the legal limit during halftime........and therefore confirming that the balls were underinflated to begin with.

This is like talking to my kids, a bunch of circular logic nonsense.

 

[SirTed]

Am I crazy?

It just says that they don't LOG the PSI. It doesn't say they don't test it. Am I reading that wrong? It's still possible that the ref takes the PSI of x number of balls to make sure they're up to snuff - but they never figured it was worth RECORDING. Now, It does mean that we have no PROOF of anything, which we don't. I'm fine with that. It's not like anyone thought the Pats were going to get punished anyway.

I don't REALLY care because I don't think it's going to be a factor in the game on Sunday, but I'm not sure if this proves anything, either way. It's circumstantial, but those fumble rate numbers are too staggering to be ignore. Never proved, but they don't look good.

Sorry Pats fans. I know it must suck to be caught in the situation where if NE loses, everyone will say "They can't win without cheating" and if they win everyone will say "They still cheated to get here, etc, etc". I think most Seahawks fans can relate due to the whole SeaAdderal label that gets thrown on us.

 

[DohBoy]

This is like talking to my kids, a bunch of circular logic nonsense.

Comparing your kids to Pats fans? Why would you slander your children like that?!?

 

[PowerRun]

I don't REALLY care because I don't think it's going to be a factor in the game on Sunday, but I'm not sure if this proves anything, either way. It's circumstantial, but those fumble rate numbers are too staggering to be ignore. Never proved, but they don't look good.
.

Nah. That poorly conducted study was also debunked by someone who actually understands statistics.

The inputs used for the flawed study were flawed themselves. And plays per fumbles is not normally distributed as the author claims.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 10/+kylenw

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Logging PSI and checking for PSI are two different matters. See the video upthread.

Either way, the League did confirm that the Patriots' footballs were underinflated to the point of being under spec. From the Boston Globe:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...d-footballs/7UlPZI3eotRTBadM89saeO/story.html

According to a National Football League letter about the investigation into the controversy that was shared with the Globe, the Patriots were informed that the league’s initial findings indicated that the game balls did not meet specifications. The league inspected each of the Patriots’ 12 game balls twice at halftime, using different pressure gauges, and found footballs that were not properly inflated.

 

[Laloosh]

Anybody else notice a trend here? Pats fans have equally terrible arguments about deflate-gate and the matchup itself.

 

[Scottemojo]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

It was enough of a psi difference for the league to hire investigators. I'm sure good old Rog has a hardon for pissing off his best friend among the owners to approve an investigation over nothing. Go buy a clue and stop polluting our boards.

Roger, former employee of the Jets, and the guy who fined the team and stole our first round draft pick for something that every team was doing at the time and provided no competitive advantage.

K.

What team would be stupid enough to to something, for years, that provided no competitive advantage?

 

[sutz]

It doesn't make the Pats look bad at all. Read the rule book. The onus is 100% on the officials to make sure the balls are properly inflated and approved for play.

Oh, hey! This means I can go rob a bank and blame it on the cops, right?
8)

 

[kearly]

Those tweets say nothing we didn't know already that's of any importance. When you inspect something and it passes, why create a log of it? You think Border Patrol or Airport security creates a log of every person who passes through without issue? Of course they don't, if the inspection passes, it's game on. There is no reason to document it because you can safely assume the inspection was made, which is exactly what the second tweet says.

Really, there isn't anything in those tweets that we weren't assuming to be the case already. The OP is pretty much wasting everyone's time.

 

[vonstout]

I don't REALLY care because I don't think it's going to be a factor in the game on Sunday, but I'm not sure if this proves anything, either way. It's circumstantial, but those fumble rate numbers are too staggering to be ignore. Never proved, but they don't look good.
.

Nah. That poorly conducted study was also debunked by someone who actually understands statistics.

The inputs used for the flawed study were flawed themselves. And plays per fumbles is not normally distributed as the author claims.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 10/+kylenw

Do you know anything about statistics and probabilities? I do. I'm a mechanical engineer. I'll make it simple for you. When your cheating team doesn't get to tamper with the balls next year and your turnovers go back to where they were (near the league average), it will prove you were cheating. The guy trying to refute the plays per fumble article is a NE fan. He looks as pathetic as you do trying to defend your team. Brady fumbled almost twice as many times in his first 6 seasons as he did the last 7 years (when they had the chance to reduce the pressure) and several other players had similar miraculous "improvements". You don't need to know much about statistics to see the correlation.

 

[PowerRun]

I don't REALLY care because I don't think it's going to be a factor in the game on Sunday, but I'm not sure if this proves anything, either way. It's circumstantial, but those fumble rate numbers are too staggering to be ignore. Never proved, but they don't look good.
.

Nah. That poorly conducted study was also debunked by someone who actually understands statistics.

The inputs used for the flawed study were flawed themselves. And plays per fumbles is not normally distributed as the author claims.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 10/+kylenw

Do you know anything about statistics and probabilities? I do. I'm a mechanical engineer. When your cheating team doesn't get to tamper with the balls next year and your turnovers go back to where they were (near the league average), it will prove you were cheating. The guy trying to refute the plays per fumble article is a NE fan. He looks as pathetic as you do trying to defend your team.

I have a degree in mathematics. Mechanical engineers don't do any rigorous stats/probability courses. It's mostly application, which is useful, but doesn't lend to fostering an understanding of the theoretical underpinning of the subject.

Plays per fumbles don't follow a Gaussian distribution. What the other author did was look at fumbles per play, which do follow a Gaussian distribution, and assumed that the inverse is also. But if you know stats like you claim you do, you'd know the inverse need not have the same distribution.

He also uses fumbles lost, and not fumbles. And only uses stats for home games, which is irrelevant.

Try harder.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Ahh yes the Gaussian Distribution.............. :roll:

 

[KiwiHawk]

Read them again.

The first one clearly states that refs do not log the PSI. So we have no idea what the PSI was during and immediately after the refs checked the balls. They were just approved for play.

Therefore, you also can't say how many lbs of PSI were lost.

No one needs to prove how many PSI were lost. All that matters is that when measured before the game they passed and when measured at halftime, the Patriots' balls failed while the Colts' balls still passed.

Since the balls were used under the same conditions, the Patriots' balls must have been tampered with subsequent to approval.

It doesn't even matter who did it - the Patriots were responsible for the footballs under league rules, so the Patriots should be punished for tampering with the footballs. It doesn't matter if is was Brady or a ball boy - punish the team and let them figure out who actually did it (like they don't already know). Even in the impossible event that the balls were not tampered with but somehow spontaneously lost pressure, it happened under the Patriots' watch so they are responsible.

I don't know why you guys keep posting this crap here. We all know what the Patriots did - the only thing that actually angers us is that the NFL is lightning-fast to fine Marshawn Lynch or test Earl Thomas for HGH, but glacially slow to punish the Patriots. Must be nice to be best buddies with the Commissioner - you get all this smokescreen of looking for the person who did it so that your punishment will fall after the Super Bowl.

I guarantee if Marshawn Lynch comes out on game day with the wrong coloured cleats, the NFL won't wait til after the game to do anything about it. Marshawn knows the allowed colours, so he knows better, right? Tom Brady uses underinflated balls knowing damn well they are underinflated - because he grips footballs for a living - so he knows better, right? Where's the swift and decisive punishment? Does the colour of cleats impact the integrity of the game more than how well a football can be gripped in inclement conditions?

Congratulations for being on the good side of NFL bias. Now please understand that none of your arguments change anything - the footballs that the Patriots were responsible for were illegal for use in an NFL game. Nothing more to prove or disprove there, it's fact. Now where's the punishment for it?

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

It doesn't make the Pats look bad at all. Read the rule book. The onus is 100% on the officials to make sure the balls are properly inflated and approved for play.

Oh, hey! This means I can go rob a bank and blame it on the cops, right?
8)

If I am to understand several Flats fans on this board, you can do anything illegal you please unless you were caught on video doing it.

 

[Reaneypark]

Jeff Howe @jeffphowe
Blandino said the referee does not log the PSI during the pregame ball check. They're either approved or disapproved.
https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/560903328268169216

Ben Volin ✔ @BenVolin
Blandino says that the NFL believes that the footballs were properly inflated and tested by Walt Anderson
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/560897389293469696

Ben VolinVerified account
‏@BenVolin
Blandino also said he was not told anything about deflated footballs in the Nov 16 game.

Post this on the Colts message board. We stopped giving a toss about your boys' flat balls for several days.

 

[vonstout]

Brady fumbles (total) first 6 years: 59; last 8years with deflated balls 36.
Brady picks first 6 years: 68; last 8 years with deflated balls 65
Kevin Faulk fumbles first 8 years: 23; his last 3 years with deflated balls 3
Wes Welker fumbles first 3 years:12; his last 6 years with deflated balls 12
BJ Green Ellis 0 fumbles in 4 years with deflated balls; 5 fumbles in 2 years with Cincy.
Amendola 10 fumbles in 4 years with Rams; 0 fumbles in 2 years with flat balls.

Explain that.