Kinda makes you wish for a live video-follow on with Jim P channeling his inner Moe HowardThis is a winner:
Kinda makes you wish for a live video-follow on with Jim P channeling his inner Moe HowardThis is a winner:
I do, however, fully endorse the "he's number one" finger-salute photo, as that's nothing but good clean fun and Goodell should be generally aware that in behaving like a total douche, he can reasonably be expected to be the brunt of what otherwise would be poor manners.
I did see the tweet first, and it was a glorious few seconds.I'm really disappointed I didn't see the Tweet before the report of the hacking -- those few moments of joy would have been wonderful thinking he was dead. I'm totally comfortable saying that I would have been happy, would have had zero empathy for his family, and would have probably even high-fived random strangers walking down the street.
Also, the Schefter tweet about the NFL "reviewing and strengthening" their cyber security is great. #IntegrityOfTheGame
EDIT: Grammar
I want this fucking asshole to live long enough for the rest of the world to figure out what a piece of shit he is. Hopefully that's about 3 more months.I did see the tweet first, and it was a glorious few seconds.
But just think of the memorials we'd have to see on TV and the web...suddenly Saint Goodell...bleh!
Good to see that getting fucked by a Pat's fan makes Rog's nipples hard.This is a winner:
It's obvious from the previous comparisons of the transient curves of a football on a stand and of footballs in a ball bag that a football in a ball bag is not going to warm up and therefore increase in pressure at the same rate as a football on a stand. The results of the game day simulation are not going to fall between the wet and dry transient curves of a football on a stand.
This puts Exponent in a quandary since the results of the game day simulation have to fall between the wet and dry transient curves of the football on stand or their whole case where they accuse the Patriots of deflating footballs collapses.
They tackle the problem in two ways. They falsify the position of the football on a stand transient curves by moving them down and manage to move the test results up by deviating from the test procedures used in the locker room on game day. Exponent must have removed the footballs from the ball bag some time before they were tested so that they could warm up in a similar manner to the football on a stand in order to achieve the higher result
Well...that was 10 minutes of my life lost. What say the engineer's here about this man's assertion?
I can't believe RG thinks that anyplace in New England represents friendly ground (or even safe territory) for him any more. He should just sell the place in Maine, or come to grips with the fact that he'll be very, very unpopular with his neighbours.Here's an archived copy of the company's site that included Jim's profile.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160410204226/http://cgicompany.com/team.php
So I'm assuming CGI Communications does work with the NFL and that is why he was at the golf tournament? If so, not a good move on his part.
God, I'd love to run into that fuckface up in Maine some time...
Worth it. The balloons coming out of Rog's head are the extra touch that might make it sui generis, no matter how much imitators might try.Looks like Jim got fired. Apparently Rog wasn’t too happy with that photo….
http://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/did-roger-goodell-have-the-pats-fan-who-gave-him-the-bird-fired/
He works or worked for a company called CGI. Well I’m hearing rumors today that Roger Goodell personally called CGI and demanded Jim Podanoffsky’s head on a silver platter.
In the Case of James L. Turner (former Miami Dolphin O-line coach) v. Theodore V. Wells Jr. et al., case number 15-cv-61855, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, one has to be amused at this assertion from Turner's lawyer about that "other" Wells Report.
“Indeed, as a result of initial disclosures, plaintiff recently learned that a high-ranking National Football League official … attended many of the interviews conducted during their supposedly independent investigation,” he said. “This official’s presence at these interviews supports plaintiff’s allegations that defendants were taking their instructions from the NFL and tailored their findings, and ultimately the Wells report, to the NFL’s agenda.”
http://www.law360.com/sports/articles/805211?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=section
Same with the Saints bountygate. Only when it hits your team do you pay attention. And even then some owners don't care that much (Jerrah)You can count on one hand easily the people here who were the least bit critical of the NFL's approach to investigating the Dolphins in this matter. This place was a PC furnace, wanted Richie Incognito roasted on a spit, and the Dolphins severely punished. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Jim Turner, or fairness or anything else. And yet the chorus is that 31 other NFL owners are shortsighted. Lol.
Yep. This place was largely a cheerleading squad for that one too.Same with the Saints bountygate. Only when it hits your team do you pay attention. And even then some owners don't care that much (Jerrah)
You can LOL about that as much as you want but the NFL owners are indeed short sighted. That we missed that here at SoSH does not make it any less so.You can count on one hand easily the people here who were the least bit critical of the NFL's approach to investigating the Dolphins in this matter. This place was a PC furnace, wanted Richie Incognito roasted on a spit, and the Dolphins severely punished. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Jim Turner, or fairness or anything else. And yet the chorus is that 31 other NFL owners are shortsighted. Lol.
It wasn't, but that doesn't detract from what I perceive to be the central point, which is that to casual fans and the rest of the NFL owners, the Pats (and Brady) appear to be as "innocent" as Richie Incognito.But was science and common sense on any of those incidents?
Thanks, but - this hasn't been about facts or science for a long time now.Apologies if this has been posted previously, but I didn't see it posted and it is dated June 7th, so...here:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/06/07/deflategate-controversy-is-due-to-scientist-error/
When I read that article last night, my first thought was that it would bite us, as it seemed to me that pumping the balls to just above the low threshold after "gloving" (but just before ref testing) could be spun as a way to have Tom Brady get the below-regulation PSI he'd prefer, since it seems like the Pats may have known that the balls were only temporarily within the tolerance.Thanks, but - this hasn't been about facts or science for a long time now.
Brady was one of the architects of the rule change to allow teams to take ball preparation right to the limit of the rule book in service of QB preferences. Kind of naive to assume that this isn't precisely what the Pats were doing.When I read that article last night, my first thought was that it would bite us, as it seemed to me that pumping the balls to just above the low threshold after "gloving" (but just before ref testing) could be spun as a way to have Tom Brady get the below-regulation PSI he'd prefer, since it seems like the Pats may have known that the balls were only temporarily within the tolerance.
Whether anyone cared about Incognito's treatment by the NFL at the time or gave a rat's ass for Jim Turner is not the point. The point is that each time anyone has peeled back the onion just a little bit on the purported independence of an NFL investigation completed by those stewards of propriety Ted Wells, Paul Weiss or the integrity protecting commissioner, one learns that the fix was in...again. Miami, Ray Rice, Bountygate and DFG all expose the sham. It's true that no one cares when it's not their team, but the point stands about the recklessness and dishonesty with which the NFL conducts its penalty procedures.You can count on one hand easily the people here who were the least bit critical of the NFL's approach to investigating the Dolphins in this matter. This place was a PC furnace, wanted Richie Incognito roasted on a spit, and the Dolphins severely punished. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Jim Turner, or fairness or anything else. And yet the chorus is that 31 other NFL owners are shortsighted. Lol.
1) this is but one possible explanation for the disparity. Another possible explanation is that the ref used the faulty gauge as was his best recollection.When I read that article last night, my first thought was that it would bite us, as it seemed to me that pumping the balls to just above the low threshold after "gloving" (but just before ref testing) could be spun as a way to have Tom Brady get the below-regulation PSI he'd prefer, since it seems like the Pats may have known that the balls were only temporarily within the tolerance.
More to the point, it's been a witch hunt against a very successful franchise who many of the other franchises feel have been cheating all along so this was their best chance to settle those vendettas.Yeah but...we're back to where we were before DFG, i.e., no one (except some of the posters in this thread) gives a rat's ass about air pressure in balls. This is about power and the ability to exercise it arbitrarily (dual entendre intended).
I can tell you when the whole Ballghazi kerfuffle erupted about the only NFL fans I got any sympathy from were the Dolphins fans. The minute Wells was named the lead investigator the consensus reaction amongst my Miami fan friends was "I assumed you guys were guilty, sorry about that. But get ready, because the Patriots are fucked."You can count on one hand easily the people here who were the least bit critical of the NFL's approach to investigating the Dolphins in this matter. This place was a PC furnace, wanted Richie Incognito roasted on a spit, and the Dolphins severely punished. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Jim Turner, or fairness or anything else. And yet the chorus is that 31 other NFL owners are shortsighted. Lol.
Just a note, that wasn't the rule change, per se. Prior to the Manning rule the home team prepared all the balls for game use, the actual rule change was that teams just prepared their own balls in general whether at home or on the road.Brady was one of the architects of the rule change to allow teams to take ball preparation right to the limit of the rule book in service of QB preferences. Kind of naive to assume that this isn't precisely what the Pats were doing.
Yes, that is precisely the rule change I was referring to. Manning and Brady were the architects.Just a note, that wasn't the rule change, per se. Prior to the Manning rule the home team prepared all the balls for game use, the actual rule change was that teams just prepared their own balls in general whether at home or on the road.
This is idiocy, pure and simple.Yeah, but it wasn't the sort of change you were implying. Teams *always* took "ball preparation right to the limit of the rule book in service of QB preferences". I mean literally going back to the early days of the game. The only real change the Manning rule wrought was to remove the home team advantage and make contests more equal.
Would have been a hell of a lot more helpful if it were written before the appeal.Nothing particularly new in this article, but I do think it distills the legal arguments on behalf of the NFLPA pretty cogently and clearly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/10/the-case-for-tom-brady-an-arbitrators-take/
The money quote is this:Thanks, but - this hasn't been about facts or science for a long time now.
The problem, of course, is that what Exponent does isn't really "science", despite being described as such.Appeal courts are poorly suited to resolve such errors. There is another way to resolve the controversy. The scientific community takes considerable pride in the concept of science being “self-correcting”. When a scientist has inadvertently made an error, the most honorable and effective method of correcting the scientific record is to issue a corrected report, and, if such is not possible, retraction.
They kind of did.(Which also makes me wonder why no one on Brady's (or the Pats') side just hired another Exponent-like firm to do the exact same thing.)
Because of the basic problem with this whole thing -- that the trier of fact was going to rule against him no matter how compelling his evidence.(Which also makes me wonder why no one on Brady's (or the Pats') side just hired another Exponent-like firm to do the exact same thing.)
The texts from the November Jets game would seem to indicate that's not what was happening, though. The rule has been in place for many years, so if they weren't doing it by November of 2014, I don't think your theory holds. I think the far more likely theory is they used the gauge Anderson remembered using.Brady was one of the architects of the rule change to allow teams to take ball preparation right to the limit of the rule book in service of QB preferences. Kind of naive to assume that this isn't precisely what the Pats were doing.