What new anti-"gate" measures should the NFL enforce (are your balls elligibile)?

Ball Inflation:

  • refs should set specific PSI at room temperature

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • refs should set PSI at "game temperature"

    Votes: 8 15.4%
  • PSI range should be broadened

    Votes: 19 36.5%
  • anything goes, let each team/QB set the pressure wherever they wat

    Votes: 18 34.6%
  • no changes

    Votes: 3 5.8%

  • Total voters
    52

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
New PSI range of 10-14, balls to be reinflated at halftime if either team or the referees feel it is necessary. That's it.
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,941
Wolfern, Austria
Broaden the PSI range
 
Leave eligibility alone; the substitution rules are needed to have a little downside to the offense as well
 

Tito's Pullover

Lol boo ALS
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2007
1,634
Anytown, USA
I voted for a broadened range -- I would say 10-16 to make it an even expansion on both sides (+/- 2.5 from the existing range).  I'd even go as extreme as 9-17 as long as the ball still basically resembles a football at those extremes.  But I'd also strongly advise that teams start their balls in the 12-14 range, or as close to 13 as possible.  The extreme ends would be meant to cover pressure variations due to play conditions.  That would make it easier to have a zero tolerance for balls outside of spec.
 
I don't think the PSI is important at all, mind you, but I doubt that an "anything goes" approach would fly.  I'm trying to be pragmatic.
 
I voted for the "safe signal" eligibility rules.  It has nothing to do with the Patriots' use of ineligibles.  I just don't like the idea of relying on the home team's PA for such an important piece of information that needs to be relayed in real time.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,296
AZ
Everyone should play with the same freaking ball.  I'd have one ball in play, until it gets unplayable or taken out of the game because a player wants to keep it or give it to a fan.  Kickers, both QBs, whatever.  Then it's "next ball up."
 
But if we're already past that, just have a chart based on the field temperature at halftime in 10 degree increments, and inflate all the balls to account for that under the IGL.  Then, that's it.  If the ref notices a ball that feels weird, take it out of play.
 
If it gets colder or warmer or starts to rain during the game, suck it up and play with the damn footballs.
 

OnWisc

Microcosmic
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2006
6,844
Chicago, IL
Broaden the acceptable range. If at the discretion of the referee a ball is either over or under inflated during the game, it's removed from play and reset to within that range.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I say let em play with whatever the fuck they want to play with. Rodgers likes his a full as possible? Go for it. Brady wants to play with a raisin? Good luck fella.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
They should focus on the following:
 
Concussion-gate
Pensions-gate
Swindling Taxpayers for stadiums-gate
Why does Rex Ryan have a job-gate
Commissioner needs to be fired yesterday-gate
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
tims4wins said:
I say let em play with whatever the fuck they want to play with. Rodgers likes his a full as possible? Go for it. Brady wants to play with a raisin? Good luck fella.
 
 
Or, conversely, just let the NFL take care of all the footballs so all QBs need to use essentially the same equipment.  Maybe take input from QBs on what they can do to make them less slick (as they apparently are fresh out of the package) and make them more likable by QBs, but otherwise, each QB needs to just shut up and play football with whatever ball he is given.  It takes all this nonsense out of it.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
 

djbayko said:
By insisting the refs stand out in a blizzard before the game to test 48 balls, you're still making a big deal out of something thsr has never been a big deal before. Outdoor, especially old weather teams have a disadvantage on offensive numbers? No kidding. Of course they do, and it has very little to do with the pressure of the football. As long as their opponent each Sunday is subjected to the same game time conditions, who cares???
 
you missed some pretty specific parts of my description.  they don't have to stand exposed at mid-field.  There could be a tent just outside of the tunnel they come out of.  It would be a very insignificant thing.
 
And, I am not making a big deal out of it.  There's a big media storm about it.  If they wanted to make a change, that was my suggestion.  Yes my initial suggestion was probably too much.  But at this stage, all I'm proposing is:  clarify the inflation pressure, and do it at "game condition temperature", which just isnt that hard.
(the wind or snow or rain doesn't matter enough to make it necessary to acount for that, and, well, draw the line somewhere)
 
The thing is, if your stance is "it doesn't matter enough", then that's fine.  But "it's too hard" is just not real, after a point.
 
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
There is a flaw in the poll, IMO. The answers to the first question are not mutually exclusive, and therefore, should be multiple choice.

As I've been claiming for over a week now, the best solution is a combination of these:
2. refs should set PSI at "game temperature"
3. PSI range should be broadened
4.anything goes, let each team/QB set the pressure wherever they wat ***As long as it is within the broadened range***

Do I think the league will be rational with their changed? No.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
simplyeric said:
you missed some pretty specific parts of my description.  they don't have to stand exposed at mid-field.  There could be a tent just outside of the tunnel they come out of.  It would be a very insignificant thing.
 
And, I am not making a big deal out of it.  There's a big media storm about it.  If they wanted to make a change, that was my suggestion.  Yes my initial suggestion was probably too much.  But at this stage, all I'm proposing is:  clarify the inflation pressure, and do it at "game condition temperature", which just isnt that hard.
(the wind or snow or rain doesn't matter enough to make it necessary to acount for that, and, well, draw the line somewhere)
 
The thing is, if your stance is "it doesn't matter enough", then that's fine.  But "it's too hard" is just not real, after a point.
 
I didn't miss that part. My argument on *this* part of your proposal is less that it's difficult and more that it doesn't matter.

Room temperature, with a particular type / precision gauge, at a particular number of minutes before game time provides for a consistent set of test conditions for every game. Yes, the weather will affect the ball, just like it affects players' cleats, their hands, their vision, etc.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
djbayko said:
I didn't miss that part. My argument on *this* part of your proposal is less that it's difficult and more that it doesn't matter.

Room temperature, with a particular type / precision gauge, at a particular number of minutes before game time provides for a consistent set of test conditions for every game. Yes, the weather will affect the ball, just like it affects players' cleats, their hands, their vision, etc.
 
gotcha.  If it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter.  (or, that it "matters" but that the fluctuations of the balls due to weather are expected and welcomed as "part of the game")
But that's different than saying that inflating the balls at "game temperature" is too hard or time consuming.  That's all I'm getting at.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Both "waterflate" and "watereligible" are ridiculous. There is no reason to spend another moment on them. Changing rules because of them only justifies the stupidity. 
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Same prep rules. Officials determine inflation with a target of 13 on the field. They can adjust as necessary at any time.
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,704
Maine
Why not allow anyone to catch a pass? The NFL wants a pass-happy league, right?
 
Seriously, though, at least 7 guys are required on the line, and everyone inside the two exterior guys on the line is ineligible. Why is an announcement needed, again?
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,114
Durham, NC
Some people's 'broadened range' is essentially saying let teams do whatever they want, which I voted for. Make it pass the 'squeeze test' and good to go. PSI be damned. If a low starting ball during the game is 'too soft' on the squeeze test, toss it and grab another. There are trade-offs of high vs low inflation, let the teams using them pick where on the spectrum they lie. We all have grabbed a football and said oh that's too soft, lets get a pump. The teams all ready scuff em and do whatever else to their hearts content.
 
Ref should simply announce over the PA who is / is not eligible and let the D sort it out. Simplify it by not having the sub out rules because the refs then don't have to track it. People LOVE trick plays (just not run by the evil Pats I guess) and this will only encourage that. Who doesn't go nuts when that 300lb lineman catches a pass and starts rumbling toward the endzone.