Testing 1 ball and a ball that was "out of of the chain of control" wouldn't work either. IMO its preferable to get several game balls and non-game balls to get a better read on what a normal reading might be.Shelterdog said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
lexrageorge said:
They have side by side entries in SJH's Big Book of Media Douches.
Borges gets a whole chapter.
bankshot1 said:
Seriously, how on earth could this be done now? We are so far after the fact and temperature and humidity and such impact these things (well, not sure about humidity).
What we know: A Colt player handed his interception ball to a member of the Colts' staff, who thought the ball was under inflated. He brings this to the attention of the refs. The Pats' first possession of the second half, a ball is tossed out because of this concern, another ball was put in play that apparently met with the ref's approval.
And the Pats proceeded to score four straight frigging' touchdowns.
bankshot1 said:
I don't think any ball testing at this point is going to be helpful. For better or worse (and it's for worse because people will assume the worst) you've just got to go with what the Refs say happened, which is going to be some version of "we tested balls before the game, they were regulation, we played with the balls during the game like the normal rules provide, we checked a few balls after the Colts complaint and the balls seemed fine, a ref handled the ball on literally every play and didn't notice anything amiss, and the balls appeared to be regulation balls at all time".
bankshot1 said:
It doesn't matter what balls they test if they're doing the tests 24-48+ hours after the game, when the balls in question have been subjected to further environmental changes. Presumably, they've been stored indoors since the game ended. Presumably they've been transported out of Foxborough, too. If by air, then were they stored in the pressurized cabin or the unpressurized cargo hold?
If they didn't test them immediately after they were removed from the game, any test they do will prove absolutely nothing one way or the other.
Because in the aftermath of Spygate, Rice etc. the NFL is going to have to show it ran a diligent, if imperfect investigation. So use all the game balls from rainy NE and rainy Seattle and check them. But checking 1 game ball for under-inflation is dumb. The sample size is beyond SSS.ivanvamp said:
bankshot1 said:
This wouldn't work at all, or create such a wide statistical baseline that it wouldn't tell you anything about whether any team tampered with the balls. I presume the balls from wildcard and late December games would by now have lost some pressure just due to natural processes and deflation from in-game use.
This is the dumbest thing in the history of stupid. There are far too many variables and possibilities in play for anyone to conclude, investigate, test or prove a willful obstruction of the league rules by anyone, let alone someone associated with the Patriots.
Heh. But seriously, aside from a confession, how on earth could they prove anything? It's too late for any test to have any reliability. And without some evidence (confession, video, etc.), all you have is one ball being thrown out and then the Patriots absolutely opening up a can of whoop-ass on Indy after a "proper" ball was put in play.Harry Hooper said:
I'm not going to beat this into the ground (or anymore than it has) but the NFL could get about 10-12 game balls from 4 teams all used on Sunday, and test them all. They could create a baseline to compare the 1 "under-inflated subject ball" to see if its really outside some norm. Combine the independent ball testing with a review on the official protocal and any observations of unusual activity if any, on the Pats sideline. Write a fucking report, and put this "issue" to bed ASAP.singaporesoxfan said:
pappymojo said:
So you can't disprove cheating and this thing will just fucking linger forever.
bankshot1 said:
And again, if all of those balls have been subjected to environmental changes since the game, then their condition is compromised and any results you get tell you jack fucking squat. There is no baseline to establish when you have no control subject. The chance to test came and went at about 10pm Sunday night.
So, what did they end up saying?Scriblerus said:
(Or did someone get to them before they got to air??!!?)
DrewDawg said:
How about 3 - Pats didn't do it, but since you're looking into this and giving us a world of crap when we didn't do anything wrong, perhaps you should check the double standard by which you approach these things since Aaron Rodgers freaking admitted to CBS that he does this exact stuff that you're accusing us of, and you didn't say anything about it.
DrewDawg said:
1A. Of course we pressured the ball to be as catchable as possible within the limits of the rules. Why wouldn't we? Same thing as having long cleats or growing the grass out. Fucking colts are too stupid to do that, well, fuck them.
I watched through the stories on the Superbowl, and there was no mention of it. I had to get back to work, so I don't know if they picked it up later.Section15Box113 said:
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The testing is not for the scientists to debate methodology, its for the public perception of NFL to control the quality of its product and for public relations. The alternative is to pretend it didn't happen, and let a big and stupid part of your fan base think The Cheatriots won the AFC championship by the Cheatriot Way.
What kills me is that the issue is being discussed as if it was NE up by 2 pts, Indy with the ball, 0:02 on the clock, Vinatieri coming in to try a 45 yarder.......and the NE grounds crew just tossed him a kicking ball with 6 psi in it. The facts, context, and overall picture are absolutely lost on a lot of 'fans' and the media.pappymojo said:
bankshot1 said:
And you don't think that if the methodology is questionable, that it won't inflame the public perception rather than defuse it? Are we not talking about a public that will latch on to any minute shred of impropriety and blow it out of proportion to the nth degree?
If the methodology of the testing is bad, then a result that implicates the Patriots will be easily questioned and dismissed by the Patriots and their fans, while a result that exonerates the Patriots will be picked apart and summarily dismissed by the masses that are convinced that they are the Cheatriots now and forever. Either way, bad methodology is simply a waste of time and gets us absolutely nowhere.
bankshot1 said:
The problem with being dishonest is that it gives credibility to folks who attack the result.
If testing would be inconclusive, the NFL should say so, and also explain that this in no way proves that the Patriots did anything wrong (a short version of Freeman's explanation would be good). What they should not do is feed the conspiracy beast by giving an easily de-bunkable half-assed white wash about "testing" the balls.
pappymojo said:
Fine, then get an independent testing lab to say that the ball was defective due to flaw in fabrication.
Again this is a PR thing.
Congrats Mark for getting props on Deadspin:
http://deadspin.com/aaron-rodgers-likes-to-tamper-with-footballs-too-1680676328
http://deadspin.com/aaron-rodgers-likes-to-tamper-with-footballs-too-1680676328
I'm not going to argue methodology. But testing 40+ like game-balls might assuage the public that the NFL is protecting the game.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Or Goodell could burn the balls.
Yup.drleather2001 said:
I'm not suggesting lying. I simply said have an independent test be run, and write a report.
bankshot1 said:
He could also just say that the ball boys are NFL employers and the only time the Patriots have the opportunity to touch the footballs during the game is when they are actually on the field on front of a billion cameras.
The league's response should be fairly straightforward:
All game balls were tested prior to the start of the game and were approved for use in the game. Officials monitor game balls during play and occasionally remove balls from use when the officials suspect that the balls have become compromised. Football is a tough sport and balls can become compromised by game play itself and/or by the environment. Specifically, cold, rainy weather like that experienced in Foxboro on Sunday could certainly impact the integrity of a game ball.
All game balls were tested prior to the start of the game and were approved for use in the game. Officials monitor game balls during play and occasionally remove balls from use when the officials suspect that the balls have become compromised. Football is a tough sport and balls can become compromised by game play itself and/or by the environment. Specifically, cold, rainy weather like that experienced in Foxboro on Sunday could certainly impact the integrity of a game ball.
The reason why some people are bringing up what Aaron Rodgers said is not to play the "they do it too" game. But rather it is done to point our the utter hypocrisy in how this story is being reported.
When it is about Rodgers admitting that he tries to break the rules and over-inflate his footballs guys like Nantz and Sims chuckle along at the "gamesmanship" of it all. When the mere suggestion is made, with no proof, that the Pats under-inflated footballs for Tom Brady's benefit we have high profile media types calling for them to be removed from playing in the Super Bowl.
All because BB didn't tell his video crew to film from upstairs instead of the sideline.
When it is about Rodgers admitting that he tries to break the rules and over-inflate his footballs guys like Nantz and Sims chuckle along at the "gamesmanship" of it all. When the mere suggestion is made, with no proof, that the Pats under-inflated footballs for Tom Brady's benefit we have high profile media types calling for them to be removed from playing in the Super Bowl.
All because BB didn't tell his video crew to film from upstairs instead of the sideline.
8slim said:
And because the media don't like that BB doesn't give them juicy quotes.
If this was Rex Ryan, in this exact situation, I'm fucking positive that the press would refer to him as "Old School" using "Playground Football Tricks". The most scathing article would probably simply ask only "Has Rex Gone Too Far This Time?"
I am looking forward to the point where Wilbon (and his ilk) DEMAND! that GB retroactively forfeit all of their games (or at least the NE one) and gives us draft picks to boot!
Devizier said:
Air takes up a lot less volume than that at higher pressure, but still a lot more than will fit in a football (unless you have it up to something ridiculous like 350-400 psi).
A typical scuba tank holds like 600 gallons of air (plus or minus, depending on tank size), but that's at 3000 psi.
TheShynessClinic said:
And the #1 quote is by some dude who claims to be a "die-hard Patriots fan", but only ever seems to make snide remarks about Belichick (if ever commenting on stuff Patriots-related).
