Good point. Additionally while the air pressure in the ball does reduce in the cold, the leather also contracts in the cold. The effect of the tightened leather is that the balls do not get softer. Cold footballs are like rocks.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
yes. "C.JJ" = "Circuit Judges." Katzmann is the Chief Judge. That's not especially significant here.
I believe you're mixing up physical phenomena. The amount of shrinkage in a football's leather in cold weather is negligible. Experiment after experiment since DFG started has shown that ball air pressure actually does decrease in close approximation with that which is predicted by the Ideal Gas Law in a fixed volume.
The reasons a football feels like stone in cold weather are:
(a) like many materials, leather hardens as it gets colder.
(b) human extremities are more sensitive to pain in colder weather (for a variety of reasons).
I enjoyed reading Stradley's response to one of the comments:
"For me, the strange thing was going into the Wells Report wanting to see the goods on Tom Brady, and then getting angry with how long and expensive it was to get such a bad evidentary case together. And that was before even seeing the Patriots Context Report or the joke of an arbitration hearing. It's grotesque really."
ESPN ombudsman with a long piece on Deflategate. Worth a read
I think my biggest frustration with ESPN at this point is their claim that they are sticking by their story of 11 of 12 balls significantly underinflated, just not by as much as 2 PSI. When you factor in the ideal gas law, the balls clearly WEREN'T "significantly" underinflated. Maybe slightly. But their story is still wrong.
I think my biggest frustration with ESPN at this point is their claim that they are sticking by their story of 11 of 12 balls significantly underinflated, just not by as much as 2 PSI. When you factor in the ideal gas law, the balls clearly WEREN'T "significantly" underinflated. Maybe slightly. But their story is still wrong.
In trying to get it right they still get it wrong. Straight from the Roger Goodell handbook.
And they'll continue to say that for as long as Mort is sick. They can't throw him into the garbage at the present time, so unless he comes right out and says who gave him that piece of garbage information, ESPN is going to shield him from his own sloppy work.
And no one is going to read that mea culpa, as well as it was written. The general fan simply doesn't care. The only thing that matters to them, and to the league for that matter, is taking down the Pats while increasing Herr Goodell's personal power. Better reporting early on might have stifled some of the glee, but given the enthusiasm with which the league has tried to stick it to the Patriots, and given the enthusiasm that ESPN has shown in covering and praising that attempt, I'm not sure any of this latest stuff matters.
Airing the "apology" at 12:30 AM, once, about reporting the now-discredited Tomase article is evidence enough that ESPN is happy to give Goodell his back massages while he's on his anti-Patriots crusade.
No, that's not my point. My point is that even if the balls were measuring at ~ 11PSI - which would be 12% under the lower limit - the "expected" measurement was like 11.3-11.5 PSI, so the balls were really only say 3-4% underinflated, which could never be characterized as "significant". It's their refusal to acknowledge the ideal gas law that is the problem, not their refusal to retract the report.
Well of course. Science is hard. These people at ESPN are dumber than ten dogs, I'm hardly shocked none of them care to look into that fact. In the editorial itself the author gleefully says he knows nothing about the Ideal Gas Law, which of course is crucial since the entire case against the Patriots is easily refuted by said law.
As long as the Pats get screwed, ESPN doesn't really give a shit about the details.
So an admitted lifelong Jets fan writes this half-assed "apology" for ESPN a year after the fact. They still fail to grasp the basic elements of why Pats fans remain angry. I am not holding my breath for any further clarity or contrition by ESPN on the matter.
It's a sad commentary on ESPN that the best they can do on the subject is to have a public editor write this along with an acknowledgement that he is a Jets homer who himself posted snarky and factually incorrect (or at least ignorant) tweets about the exact subject before his hiring. I give Brady credit for owning up to that being a problem; however, it only emphasizes that ESPN is deeply, deeply flawed as a purported 'journalistic' enterprise.
To be clear, it's a good piece---and reasonably balanced. But the speaker is (as he acknowledges) very imperfectly situated on this one.
Incredibly disingenuous to not even mention the non-stop breathless parade of talking heads they put on-air to drag Brady and New England's legacy through the mud with seemingly no attempts made to clear up or explain what was actually happening. ESPN had a choice: Find the truth or feed the shit show. It's undeniably clear what path they chose and why they chose it. That's what this is all about. Not whether or not they have a responsibility to make Pats fans happy or some other nonsense.
ESPN has nothing to do with journalism. They are an entertainment corporation.
And those rough percentages are for gauge pressure, not the absolute pressure. They should be even smaller. That's the same mistake Neil Degrasse Tyson made.
I don't think it's a particularly good piece. He certainly acknowledges many of the complaints, but glosses over them, in particular the 11 of 12 two pounds per square inch fiasco. He writes:
From what point forward? When did ESPN acknowledge the wrongness of this? And what of the repeating of it over and over, including Brunell and company feeling balls under inflated by that amount, and tearfully saying there's no way Brady the Liar couldn't tell?
If only ESPN looked into Mort's eyes to see if he was wrong about the information he had in his tweet. That would have solved everything before it got out of hand.
-The fact that they call him a public editor and not an ombudsman is still funny/ridiculous to me.
-I hate that they framed it around the camera tweet. It makes Patriots fans seem petty for complaining about a stupid tweet when it was actually after 7-8 months of this constant shitty reporting. "Emojis are imprecise" No shit maybe you shouldn't use them when tweeting from your "news" show's twitter.
-I hate that the Wickersham/DVN article is still taken as gospel there with all of its anonymous sources. I don't have any other specific examples now but it feels to me like they did it just so they could point to something that seemed more well researched to say "see we did this deep investigative piece."
-I feel even worse for Mike Reiss who is probably the most diligent, hard-working and vanilla beat guy in town and I mean that as a complement. We all know why they edited his post. But to actually let him say it and not refute it in this piece that it was because it was casting doubt on another one of their reporters doing a shitty anonymously sourced hatchet job.
Good for them for (finally) doing this but it just didn't feel like enough. I don't know what I was expecting but this is just excuse making with very little accountability and no apology.
-I hate that they framed it around the camera tweet. It makes Patriots fans seem petty for complaining about a stupid tweet when it was actually after 7-8 months of this constant shitty reporting. "Emojis are imprecise" No shit maybe you shouldn't use them when tweeting from your "news" show's twitter.
-I hate that the Wickersham/DVN article is still taken as gospel there with all of its anonymous sources. I don't have any other specific examples now but it feels to me like they did it just so they could point to something that seemed more well researched to say "see we did this deep investigative piece."
-I feel even worse for Mike Reiss who is probably the most diligent, hard-working and vanilla beat guy in town and I mean that as a complement. We all know why they edited his post. But to actually let him say it and not refute it in this piece that it was because it was casting doubt on another one of their reporters doing a shitty anonymously sourced hatchet job.
Good for them for (finally) doing this but it just didn't feel like enough. I don't know what I was expecting but this is just excuse making with very little accountability and no apology.
The entire article's premise is wrong. ESPN's 'lack of transparency' wasn't the problem. The problem was they got it wrong, refused to correct and then used the wrong info like a bludgeon to hammer home Roger's ill wishes and smear campaigns.
Even their 'splaining to do efforts there are weak sauce. It didn't even mea culpa for Stephen A. Smith's leaked incorrect rant on Brady's cellphone. They keep trying to have it both ways and they keep failing. They were wrong, the science was right, but they can't admit it. They are cowards and liars until they fully comply with all of the facts and they will never do that as long as they need the NFL to make money- which is the root of most of this.
Even their 'splaining to do efforts there are weak sauce. It didn't even mea culpa for Stephen A. Smith's leaked incorrect rant on Brady's cellphone. They keep trying to have it both ways and they keep failing. They were wrong, the science was right, but they can't admit it. They are cowards and liars until they fully comply with all of the facts and they will never do that as long as they need the NFL to make money- which is the root of most of this.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 6s7 seconds ago
Judge Katzmann opens hearing by asking how NFL can justify penalty based on "new factual findings" after Wells report.
Judge Katzmann opens hearing by asking how NFL can justify penalty based on "new factual findings" after Wells report.
Brandt was on the morning SC and said that if the questions centered around the commissioner's rights as per the CBA, it was good for the league. If the questions were about the "facts" of the case and punishment, it was good for Brady.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 29s29 seconds ago
Judge Chin: Shouldn't Brady have been given notice re destroying cell phone?
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 45s46 seconds ago
NFL lawyer Clement: destruction of cell phone amounted to "out and out obstruction."
LOL at Clement.
Judge Chin: Shouldn't Brady have been given notice re destroying cell phone?
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 45s46 seconds ago
NFL lawyer Clement: destruction of cell phone amounted to "out and out obstruction."
LOL at Clement.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 10s11 seconds ago
Judge Parker: "There was no element of surprise" related to the cell phone issue.
Judge Parker: "There was no element of surprise" related to the cell phone issue.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 6s6 seconds ago
Judge Chin notes that first offenses for uniform and equipment violations result in fines. Clement: suspension was for "conduct detrimental"
Judge Chin notes that first offenses for uniform and equipment violations result in fines. Clement: suspension was for "conduct detrimental"
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 8s8 seconds ago
Judge Parker says some might call suspension "draconian." "Why is the inflation level so critical in these games?"
Judge Parker says some might call suspension "draconian." "Why is the inflation level so critical in these games?"
It's as funny as a heart attack. Post-Walsh ESPN is quietly but very explicitly moving away from even the trappings of formal journalism. That's bad for a lot of good reporters, and bad for people who likes sports.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 1m1 minute ago
Parker questions whether you get "any advantage on the field" from under inflated footballs.
Parker questions whether you get "any advantage on the field" from under inflated footballs.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 4s4 seconds ago
Judge Katzmann: "As you know, stickum is prohibited..." Notes "gross disparity" between stickum penalty and Brady's punishment.
Judge Katzmann: "As you know, stickum is prohibited..." Notes "gross disparity" between stickum penalty and Brady's punishment.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 1m1 minute ago
Clement repeats that penalty was well within Goodell's discretion.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 37s37 seconds ago
Parker: Goodeell is "in effect the judge, the juror and -- 'executioner' is not quite the right word -- but the enforcer."
Clement repeats that penalty was well within Goodell's discretion.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 37s37 seconds ago
Parker: Goodeell is "in effect the judge, the juror and -- 'executioner' is not quite the right word -- but the enforcer."
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 6m6 minutes ago
Parker questions whether you get "any advantage on the field" from under inflated footballs
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 3m3 minutes ago
Clement repeats that penalty was well within Goodell's discretion.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 1m1 minute ago
Parker: Goodeell is "in effect the judge, the juror and -- 'executioner' is not quite the right word -- but the enforcer."
Parker questions whether you get "any advantage on the field" from under inflated footballs
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 3m3 minutes ago
Clement repeats that penalty was well within Goodell's discretion.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 1m1 minute ago
Parker: Goodeell is "in effect the judge, the juror and -- 'executioner' is not quite the right word -- but the enforcer."
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 10s10 seconds ago
Clement: "Every major sport" involves discretion to commissioner on punishments. Must defer to Goodell.
Clement: "Every major sport" involves discretion to commissioner on punishments. Must defer to Goodell.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 23s23 seconds ago
Clement: "Every major sport" involves discretion to commissioner on punishments. Must defer to Goodell.
Clement: "Every major sport" involves discretion to commissioner on punishments. Must defer to Goodell.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 24s24 seconds ago
Katzmann: Could Goodell have suspended Brady for a year? Clement: Yes, though that would have been "excessive."
Katzmann: Could Goodell have suspended Brady for a year? Clement: Yes, though that would have been "excessive."
This remains the strongest point in the NFL's favor. It will come down to whether it's strong enough for the appeals court to overturn Berman
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 18s19 seconds ago
Katzmann says he can't find evidence in record that Brady's alleged gifts to ball boys were "inducements" to engage in scheme.
Of course! Only sane and unbiased people would think that. The NFL is far from that.
Katzmann says he can't find evidence in record that Brady's alleged gifts to ball boys were "inducements" to engage in scheme.
Of course! Only sane and unbiased people would think that. The NFL is far from that.
Excessive based on what criteria? Is he going to make the PED comparison?
Clement is earning his paycheck by having to stand there and recite the NFL party line. I wonder if his words sound as bad as they look on that Twitter feed.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 18s19 seconds ago
Katzmann says he can't find evidence in record that Brady's alleged gifts to ball boys were "inducements" to engage in scheme.
Katzmann says he can't find evidence in record that Brady's alleged gifts to ball boys were "inducements" to engage in scheme.