Home Non Cigar Related
Options

Inflate-gate?

MartelMartel Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭
Your thoughts? Colts got spanked. I have no doubt the Pats would have won anyway, but I'm the kind of guy who hates it when my wife tries to catch a glimpse of the kids' cards when playing go fish (she grew up in a family of playful cheaters; I was taught to respect the rules). Something about this rubs me really wrong. Part of that is because my Colts lost, so I want to know what some non-Pats and non-Colts fans think. Pretty much all my friends other than you guys live in Indy, New England, or in the South where SEC football is the only thing that matters.
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot.  I will smoke anything, though.
«13

Comments

  • Options
    MartelMartel Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭
    Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

    I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot.  I will smoke anything, though.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    I'm a colts fan by marriage, but as far as I'm concerned if you're caught cheating you forfeit the game. Should be colts and seahawks in the superbowl. Who's to say it didn't change the outcome? Give a great player a small edge and huge advantages happen. Colts suffered from a lot of missed opportunities from bad throws and drops that didn't happen to the Pats. Can't forget that every extended drive could have prevented points both by time of possession and less wear on the defense as well as the obvious result in more points.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    Plus Belichick's original statement that he didn't know that a deflated ball would be an advantage but apparently physicists say it would had "Guilty as f***" written all over it. This guy shouldn't even be coaching after his first issue, once a cheat always a cheat.

    There's only one other sport where garbage like this slides: pro wrestling. The NFL feels more like the WWE every day.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    As a Pats fan, I'm upset about the "deflation" thing, and if it's proven this was a deliberate act, the team should be penalized to the full extent the rules allow. At the moment, however, it hasn't been conclusively proven that someone on the Pats deliberately underinflated the balls during the game. Not yet anyway.The NFL investigation will deliver the answer to the question. After the Super Bowl, of course, since the NFL wouldn't want any kind of explosive "You're nicked" thing to derail their precious event. Although, of course, it will. That's all the TV commentators will be talking about.

    But certainly these footballs didn't give any boost to Brady during the Colts game. He was 23 for 35, with only 226 yards. Most of the touchdowns were running scores. The running game--plus outstanding defense--won it for them, not an overinflated football. This doesn't excuse the use of these footballs by any means, but the point is in the end they gave no real edge of any kind.

    And referees do allow teams to either over and under inflate a ball by a certain amount, and they allow teams to "rub" the balls with dirt before a game. And referees handle every single "new" ball provided by the offense before they go into play, so it's their job to do the "inflation policing"; it shouldn't have needed to have been a Colts player who discovered the "under-inflation."

    Teams aren't allowed to heat up the balls during cold weather, but the sideline attendants did this during the Panters/Vikings game in December. Was there an investigation then? During the season Aaron Rodgers admitted he likes to playing with illegally overinflated footballs, so one can assume that the Packers were doing this as well.Yet, there was no investigation of the footballs the Packers were using during the season.

    If the Pats win the Super Bowl, will this scandal taint the victory? Absolutely. But the Pats have been hated for so long by everybody outside of New England that it's just fuel for the fire.

    But the stupidest comments out of all of this come--naturally--from the Ravens, who claimed that their kicking unit were using under-inflated footballs during the Pats/Raven playoff game and that affected their punts and kickoffs. Well, here's the news: Teams provide their OWN footballs on offense--so, essentially, the Ravens are accusing themselves of underinflating their own footballs LOL!
  • Options
    MartelMartel Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    As a Pats fan, I'm upset about the "deflation" thing, and if it's proven this was a deliberate act, the team should be penalized to the full extent the rules allow. But certainly these footballs didn't give any boost to Brady during the Colts game. His passing game against the Colts was mediocre at best.

    And referees do allow teams to either over and under inflate a ball by a certain amount, and they allow teams to "rub" the balls with dirt before a game. And referees handle every single "new" ball put into play by the offense before they go into play, so it's their job to do the "inflation policing"; it shouldn't have had to been a Colts player who discovered the "under-inflation."

    Teams aren't supposed to heat up the balls during cold weather, but one team did this a couple weeks ago but there was no investigation. During the season Aaron Rodgers admitted he likes to playing with footballs that are ove-rinflated beyond the limits, so one can assume that the Packers were doing this as well during the season. Yet, there was no investigation of the balls the Packers were using.

    But the stupidest comments out of all of this come--naturally--from the Ravens, who claimed that their kicking unit were using under-inflated footballs during the Pats/Raven playoff game and that affected their punts and kickoffs. Well, here's the news: Teams provide their OWN footballs on offense--so, essentially, the Ravens are accusing themselves of underinflating their own footballs LOL!


    Two points...teams don't use their own balls; they're provided by both teams to the refs before the game and then randomly split to equipment guys provided by the home team on each side of the field. Second, I don't like it when Rodgers over-inflates or anyone else. The "everyone does it" excuse isn't an excuse. It doesn't excuse Rodgers or the Pats.
    Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

    I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot.  I will smoke anything, though.
  • Options
    SM0K3YSM0K3Y Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭
    Pats are cheaters, they just dont use the ole tried and true method the Seahawks use.....HGH, Roids and punching people in the face, instead they use new age tech sneaky stuff. Bottom line is all the teams cheat in one way or another, Pats just keep getting caught!! Its a shame cause it besmirches their dynasty. **NOTE** This is in humor, if anyone is offended please contact Goodell immediatley so I can be investigated! oh and GOCOWBOYS!!!!
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    As a Pats fan, I'm upset about the "deflation" thing, and if it's proven this was a deliberate act, the team should be penalized to the full extent the rules allow. But certainly these footballs didn't give any boost to Brady during the Colts game. His passing game against the Colts was mediocre at best.

    And referees do allow teams to either over and under inflate a ball by a certain amount, and they allow teams to "rub" the balls with dirt before a game. And referees handle every single "new" ball put into play by the offense before they go into play, so it's their job to do the "inflation policing"; it shouldn't have had to been a Colts player who discovered the "under-inflation."

    Teams aren't supposed to heat up the balls during cold weather, but one team did this a couple weeks ago but there was no investigation. During the season Aaron Rodgers admitted he likes to playing with footballs that are ove-rinflated beyond the limits, so one can assume that the Packers were doing this as well during the season. Yet, there was no investigation of the balls the Packers were using.

    But the stupidest comments out of all of this come--naturally--from the Ravens, who claimed that their kicking unit were using under-inflated footballs during the Pats/Raven playoff game and that affected their punts and kickoffs. Well, here's the news: Teams provide their OWN footballs on offense--so, essentially, the Ravens are accusing themselves of underinflating their own footballs LOL!
    This is madness. You're right that Brady had an average game - under below average conditions! So clearly he overperformed! Plus, if the ball is easier to handle it helps the running game as well. I saw Blount take what looked like a really hard shot right on the ball and it didn't move. I was really impressed with his strength until all this. And you make it sound like it's getting caught that's wrong, saying the refs should catch it. That's garbage. They cheated. The penalty should be forfeit. It's not a legitimate game.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Martel:

    Two points...teams don't use their own balls; they're provided by both teams to the refs before the game and then randomly split to equipment guys provided by the home team on each side of the field. Second, I don't like it when Rodgers over-inflates or anyone else. The "everyone does it" excuse isn't an excuse. It doesn't excuse Rodgers or the Pats.


    That's only partially correct. The teams "own" theiir own league-sanctioned footballs, which usually carry the name of the team on it. Twelve footballs are provided by each team to refs before the game, and the refs inspect them to make sure they're in spec. The footballs are then returned to the line attendants for each team, who are supposed to watch over them. Assuming that all 12 of the Pats' footballs were properly inflated before the game (and this can't be proven; maybe the refs didn't notice this), the deflation--or substitution of the "official" footballs with deflated footballs--would have had to occur during the game itself. If this did occur, one should expect to see video footage of this come out at some point. I have a feeling that interviews of sideline attendants will reveal no confessions of any kind.

    When a team goes on offense, the line attendant gives their own branded football to the referee, who, again, has the right to inspect it before it's given to the offense. If 11 of the 12 balls were underinflated, how come the refs didn't notice this during the game?

    Again, you're right that the fact that "everyone does it" is no excuse, and the Pats should be penalized to the full extent of the NFL rules if it's proven that the deflation was a deliberate act.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    This is madness. You're right that Brady had an average game - under below average conditions! So clearly he overperformed! Plus, if the ball is easier to handle it helps the running game as well. I saw Blount take what looked like a really hard shot right on the ball and it didn't move. I was really impressed with his strength until all this. And you make it sound like it's getting caught that's wrong, saying the refs should catch it. That's garbage. They cheated. The penalty should be forfeit. It's not a legitimate game.


    What were the below average conditions? Temperature was around 50 degrees. Yes, it was raining, but the Pats are used to playing--and winning handily--in bad weather, especially at home. Plus, how do you know that an underinflated ball is easier for a running back to carry? Only NFL running backs would be qualified to opine on that, and chances are, just as some quarterbacks prefer overinflated footballs and some underinflated, you'd never get honest consensus. And, frankly, your attribution of an outstanding performance by Blount to an underinflated ball is the REAL madness. MADNESS! MADNESS, I TELL YA! :)

    If the Pats deliberately underinflated the footballs (and other than the balls themselves, there's no evidence that's come to light showing attendants deflating them on the sidelines, although there may be soon--who knows?), they did cheat and should be penalized to the full extent of the rules. But forfeit the game? PUHLEEZE! If the Pats had stolen the Colts' playbook or were monitoring their huddle talk or dropped melatonin into Luck's Gatorade you might have a case, given the way they Colts played. But, as far as I know, there's never been a single situation in sports where a discovered doctored piece of equipment, whether it's an ace's spitball or a corked bat, has ever caused the forfeiture of a professional sports game of any kind.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    I don't know why on earth I'd have to be a running back to understand that something slightly deflated will be easier to grip and therefore give you a better hold on it. It's not like he's doing something with the ball where personal preference would come in to play, he's simply holding on to it.

    And all cheating should result in forfeit IMO. What's a meaningless fine going to do? Here, sir, this will win you the AFC championship, but it'll cost you $25,000. Oh, no thanks, maybe fore 10k, but that's a bit too steep. Crazy.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    I'm thinking that if it is beyond on a shadow of a doubt proven that the Pats did it...forfeit the game or some first round picks. Money does not bother players or clubs, so fines are lip service imho.It's also interesting that the Pats have more than their fair share of cheating allegations...bias because they're good or legit gripe? I dunno.
  • Options
    jd50aejd50ae Posts: 7,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Could they actually forfeit the game? Would the NFL actually have the cojones to do that?
  • Options
    MartelMartel Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭
    jd50ae:
    Could they actually forfeit the game? Would the NFL actually have the cojones to do that?
    My understanding is that there's an NFL bylaw which prohibits them being stripped of the victory. I suppose they could forfeit voluntarily, but yeah, right!

    As a Colts fan, I wouldn't want it. Maybe if they made us play the Ravens for the right to go, but not just as a gift.
    Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

    I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot.  I will smoke anything, though.
  • Options
    Bob_LukenBob_Luken Posts: 10,316 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Big picture? Will this change the way balls are managed? I would think so. The NFL refs have complete control of the balls used for punts and kickoffs. Now, I think you'll see some new rules in play for the rest of the balls too.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    I don't know why on earth I'd have to be a running back to understand that something slightly deflated will be easier to grip and therefore give you a better hold on it. It's not like he's doing something with the ball where personal preference would come in to play, he's simply holding on to it.

    And all cheating should result in forfeit IMO. What's a meaningless fine going to do? Here, sir, this will win you the AFC championship, but it'll cost you $25,000. Oh, no thanks, maybe fore 10k, but that's a bit too steep. Crazy.


    I disagree with you. Any running back would say that an underinflated ball, because it's smaller, has less mass to hold onto, and is therefore less solid in the grip, and its squishiness therefore would make it easier to knock out of a running back's hands.

    Do you see the absurdity of both our arguments? We're not NFL running backs, and are therefore not qualified to say what kind of ball would be best for anyone. Anymore than you could say that an underinflated ball is better for a quarterback, given that Aaron Rodgers says that an overinflated ball is better for him.

    In any case, at the moment any number of factors could have results in the balls being underinflated. Keep in mind that ALL balls passed the refs' inspection at the start of the game, and all balls used during the game also passed inspection when the ballboy handed a ball to a ref to give to the Pats on offense. Given that the footballs were tested long after the game was over, it's always possible that the balls naturally deflated for other reasons--such as atmospheric conditions or natural deflation caused by two thousand pounds of football players landing on them play after play. The only way to verify this would be to test the Colts "used" and "unused" footballs as well. Is the NFL doing this?
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    I don't know why on earth I'd have to be a running back to understand that something slightly deflated will be easier to grip and therefore give you a better hold on it. It's not like he's doing something with the ball where personal preference would come in to play, he's simply holding on to it.

    And all cheating should result in forfeit IMO. What's a meaningless fine going to do? Here, sir, this will win you the AFC championship, but it'll cost you $25,000. Oh, no thanks, maybe fore 10k, but that's a bit too steep. Crazy.


    I disagree with you. Any running back would say that an underinflated ball, because it's smaller, has less mass to hold onto, and is therefore less solid in the grip, and its squishiness therefore would make it easier to knock out of a running back's hands.

    Do you see the absurdity of both our arguments? We're not NFL running backs, and are therefore not qualified to say what kind of ball would be best for anyone. Anymore than you could say that an underinflated ball is better for a quarterback, given that Aaron Rodgers says that an overinflated ball is better for him.

    In any case, at the moment any number of factors could have results in the balls being underinflated. Keep in mind that ALL balls passed the refs' inspection at the start of the game, and all balls used during the game also passed inspection when the ballboy handed a ball to a ref to give to the Pats on offense. Given that the footballs were tested long after the game was over, it's always possible that the balls naturally deflated for other reasons--such as atmospheric conditions or natural deflation caused by two thousand pounds of football players landing on them play after play. The only way to verify this would be to test the Colts "used" and "unused" footballs as well. Is the NFL doing this?
    I would assume all balls were tested, not just the Pats', and it was found that the Pats' balls were more deflated than the Colts' balls. Maybe I'm giving too much respect for methodology where it isn't due though.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    I'm not in the NFL, but I have played football.No point to make, just wanted you to know.
  • Options
    D_FreshD_Fresh Posts: 610 ✭✭✭
    I really wanted to stay out of this but... I wanted to chime in on a few things. The Colts got stomped, deflated balls or not. Now that that's out of the way...Multiple quarterbacks have discussed how a deflated ball is an advantage. In most cases it's easier to grip. Tom Brady himself has said he prefers a deflated ball. And if it's not an advantage, why would the Patriots risk it.

    The fact that 11 out of 12 balls were deflated by 2 PSI is more than just a coincidence. It's unlikely environmental factors would account for that kind of PSI loss and be consistent through 11 footballs. Short of any video of someone tampering with the balls, I don't see anything coming out of this.

    Lastly, unfortunately the Patriots have been caught cheating in the past. Whether fair or not, it's hard to overlook that when addressing the recent allegations.
  • Options
    Glock1975Glock1975 Posts: 5,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    I don't know why on earth I'd have to be a running back to understand that something slightly deflated will be easier to grip and therefore give you a better hold on it. It's not like he's doing something with the ball where personal preference would come in to play, he's simply holding on to it.

    And all cheating should result in forfeit IMO. What's a meaningless fine going to do? Here, sir, this will win you the AFC championship, but it'll cost you $25,000. Oh, no thanks, maybe fore 10k, but that's a bit too steep. Crazy.


    I disagree with you. Any running back would say that an underinflated ball, because it's smaller, has less mass to hold onto, and is therefore less solid in the grip, and its squishiness therefore would make it easier to knock out of a running back's hands.

    Do you see the absurdity of both our arguments? We're not NFL running backs, and are therefore not qualified to say what kind of ball would be best for anyone. Anymore than you could say that an underinflated ball is better for a quarterback, given that Aaron Rodgers says that an overinflated ball is better for him.

    In any case, at the moment any number of factors could have results in the balls being underinflated. Keep in mind that ALL balls passed the refs' inspection at the start of the game, and all balls used during the game also passed inspection when the ballboy handed a ball to a ref to give to the Pats on offense. Given that the footballs were tested long after the game was over, it's always possible that the balls naturally deflated for other reasons--such as atmospheric conditions or natural deflation caused by two thousand pounds of football players landing on them play after play. The only way to verify this would be to test the Colts "used" and "unused" footballs as well. Is the NFL doing this?
    I would assume all balls were tested, not just the Pats', and it was found that the Pats' balls were more deflated than the Colts' balls. Maybe I'm giving too much respect for methodology where it isn't due though.
    Come on really? This happens in every sport, pitchers scuff balls, put all kinds of scratches on them, extra pine tar on bats, soccer players overinflate to make ball go much farther. Also no 1 said the colts balls were tested, and it's the referee's fault who is liable for testing these, if it passes them what are they supposed to do. Everyone in the media just looking for a story to hammer the pats, every team in the nfl does this, certain QB's have this done all the time to there balls, no 1 ever cares or pays attention till its a playoff game. Let's just say pats were the better team and deserve to go to the Super bowl, no balls that day had any influence on that game, better team won. I'm no pats fan by the way. The fans who should be crying are the Cowboys, now they got screwed by a dumb call.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    I'm not crying...it's allergies.
  • Options
    Glock1975Glock1975 Posts: 5,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rain:
    I'm not crying...it's allergies.
    Zyrtec Bro
  • Options
    EchambersEchambers Posts: 4,178 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it doesn't matter who won or who might have won. The issue is if someone cheated or not. If they did, then I am pretty black and white about these things: they ought to forfeit the game. I know that is not how it will go--a fine for sure, maybe loose a draft pick. For me it is about dishonoring the both teams, the fans, the NFL. And as others have said, if they cheated here where else have they cheated?

    When I was teaching university, I had a zero tolerance policy for cheating. If you cheated and I caught you, you failed the class. I would tell my class this policy at the start of every quarter and I still caught someone cheating nearly every class.
    -- "There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go poke it with a stick."
  • Options
    Glock1975Glock1975 Posts: 5,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yeah I'm not saying it's right, if they did do it, yes cheating is cheating, I don't think it mattered as far as the game goes, but yes if they did it to get some edge, yes tegu should be punished. The refs now are saying they took all those balls at half time, so if they knew then, the nfl should have been contacted. Who knows the truth m, they cover up everything.
  • Options
    No_one21No_one21 Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭
    Ok a few things, and I hope you see this response as unbiased as possible.

    1. There hasn't been a single stated fact from the NFL other than there is an investigation. No where have I nor anyone else I've seen/heard has been able to find anything with any factual evidence at all. All this, "11/12 balls" "pats vs colts balls were this.." is unfounded since there aren't any actual sourced quotes or documents stating this. Quite simply, it's bullshit.

    2. Anyone with any physical knowledge or common sense at all should be able to step back from this and realize it's just not very likely that this occurred. Cold temps decrease air pressure in confined spaces. Fatigue can decrease ball's abilities to hold air, fatigue being normal football activities. Consider the chain of events, the number of people who touch the ball, and who "figured it out". Anyone who thinks they can definitively refute these facts or treats these considerations as "excuses" is either just blinded by 'sports fan' type arguments, or is bluntly, a moron.

    3. There are so many other little reasons this is all so stupid, but they are largely not able to be empirically proven. But, the entirety of the "Inflate Gate" soapbox preacher's unsubstantiated claims are all just as subjective. Seriously, show ANY proof at all. Any.

    This all being said, if it comes out that factually they've found to have cheated then I'll recant. I'll be angry at my team, and I think they should be punished fully for it. But right now, the NFL is letting this get blown up way too much too quickly such that it's a "Guilty until proven innocent" situation. Again I hope you see I have been objective here and logical, I'm not interested in a stupid argument here.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    HE TOOK THREE STEPS AND REACHED FOR THE GOAL LINE!!!Oh, wrong thread. We need a catch gate.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    No_one21:
    Ok a few things, and I hope you see this response as unbiased as possible.

    1. There hasn't been a single stated fact from the NFL other than there is an investigation. No where have I nor anyone else I've seen/heard has been able to find anything with any factual evidence at all. All this, "11/12 balls" "pats vs colts balls were this.." is unfounded since there aren't any actual sourced quotes or documents stating this. Quite simply, it's bullshit.

    2. Anyone with any physical knowledge or common sense at all should be able to step back from this and realize it's just not very likely that this occurred. Cold temps decrease air pressure in confined spaces. Fatigue can decrease ball's abilities to hold air, fatigue being normal football activities. Consider the chain of events, the number of people who touch the ball, and who "figured it out". Anyone who thinks they can definitively refute these facts or treats these considerations as "excuses" is either just blinded by 'sports fan' type arguments, or is bluntly, a moron.

    3. There are so many other little reasons this is all so stupid, but they are largely not able to be empirically proven. But, the entirety of the "Inflate Gate" soapbox preacher's unsubstantiated claims are all just as subjective. Seriously, show ANY proof at all. Any.

    This all being said, if it comes out that factually they've found to have cheated then I'll recant. I'll be angry at my team, and I think they should be punished fully for it. But right now, the NFL is letting this get blown up way too much too quickly such that it's a "Guilty until proven innocent" situation. Again I hope you see I have been objective here and logical, I'm not interested in a stupid argument here.
    Give me all of the balls used and I'll give you an empirical finding inside of 30 minutes. It's simple. Have someone label all of one teams balls A and one team's balls B. Have **someone else** weigh all balls and record weights for A balls and B balls. Perform a t-test to compare group weights and see if they are different. If so, go ahead and check who is team A and team B to produce result.

    Also I'd like to add that maybe I've been duped by the media, but I thought the report of 11/12 balls underweight was from the investigation.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    No_one21No_one21 Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    No_one21:
    Ok a few things, and I hope you see this response as unbiased as possible.

    1. There hasn't been a single stated fact from the NFL other than there is an investigation. No where have I nor anyone else I've seen/heard has been able to find anything with any factual evidence at all. All this, "11/12 balls" "pats vs colts balls were this.." is unfounded since there aren't any actual sourced quotes or documents stating this. Quite simply, it's bullshit.

    2. Anyone with any physical knowledge or common sense at all should be able to step back from this and realize it's just not very likely that this occurred. Cold temps decrease air pressure in confined spaces. Fatigue can decrease ball's abilities to hold air, fatigue being normal football activities. Consider the chain of events, the number of people who touch the ball, and who "figured it out". Anyone who thinks they can definitively refute these facts or treats these considerations as "excuses" is either just blinded by 'sports fan' type arguments, or is bluntly, a moron.

    3. There are so many other little reasons this is all so stupid, but they are largely not able to be empirically proven. But, the entirety of the "Inflate Gate" soapbox preacher's unsubstantiated claims are all just as subjective. Seriously, show ANY proof at all. Any.

    This all being said, if it comes out that factually they've found to have cheated then I'll recant. I'll be angry at my team, and I think they should be punished fully for it. But right now, the NFL is letting this get blown up way too much too quickly such that it's a "Guilty until proven innocent" situation. Again I hope you see I have been objective here and logical, I'm not interested in a stupid argument here.
    Give me all of the balls used and I'll give you an empirical finding inside of 30 minutes. It's simple. Have someone label all of one teams balls A and one team's balls B. Have **someone else** weigh all balls and record weights for A balls and B balls. Perform a t-test to compare group weights and see if they are different. If so, go ahead and check who is team A and team B to produce result.

    Also I'd like to add that maybe I've been duped by the media, but I thought the report of 11/12 balls underweight was from the investigation.
    That's the point though, your first comment, if this was such a big deal they should have done a simple empirical test to say team A's balls were deflated and we are certain it was done deliberately and not a natural cause whereas team B's balls were within regulation perfectly. Otherwise, it can still be proven, it's just difficult to make a solid case without conjecture.

    And to your second comment, you may not have been duped. It could be true. But every single quote I see is this, "The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation..."
    Sources involved and familiar with the investigation.... that's not fact. Sources can be correct, sources can be bold-face liars, and everything in between. It means nothing until there's actual proof. Again, I won't argue if there's proof, but for now I'm very skeptical.
  • Options
    The3StogiesThe3Stogies Posts: 2,652 ✭✭✭✭
    Picking on the Pats again lol. If they were the guilty party then punish them but the game is on the books. Be funny if it turned out Indy deflated the balls wouldn't it? Puzzles me that the refs spotting the ball all the first half didn't notice the balls were soft, before the hike did Wilfork pull one from his pants. All kidding aside if they cheated they should be punished. Can't wait to see the findings and what will be done.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Speaking with the media after he was drafted first overall, Luck was asked how he's felt in the days since losing the AFC championship to New England on Sunday, in what's being referred to as "Deflategate" because off accusations that the Patriots had 11 of their 12 footballs under-inflated by two pounds per square inch. "It's sort of, the energy is sort of sucked out of you," Luck said. "You do feel deflated." It took Luck a moment to realize what he said and a look of regret washed over his face. He closed his eyes and struggled to find words to recover. He was then asked about the Patriots using under-inflated balls but said he didn't notice anything about New England's footballs because Indianapolis used its own.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Okay, every day this seems to get worse and worse.

    1. It does appear that 1) the Pats footballs were fine at the start of the game (since they passed the refs inspection), but somewhere between the start of the game and halftime (when they were checked again), 11 of the 12 were found to be deflated. I wasn't aware that this had detected during the game, as opposed to after the game. The question is: Once the officlals discovered they were underinflated at halftime, what happened then? Did the balls become inflated up to spec? If so, then all the "now properly inflated" Pats balls used in the second half (when the Pats scored most of their points) were up to spec. Therefore, no "beneficial" edge for the Pats when they played their best.

    2. Do we know at this point whether the Colts footballs were also tested at halftime using the same level of scrutiny as the Pats footballs? If they were, and the Colts' footballs passed the inflation test, then we can safety say that weather had no effect on the pressure of the footballs on either side--tampering must have occurred with the Pats' footballs during the first half half.

    3. If tampering occurred in the first half, the question must be 1) Who did it and 2) Were they ordered to do so by Belichik or Brady? From my understanding, game balls are kept in a bag that is not accessible by coaches or players. The only people who would have had access were line attendants and ball boys or some mysterious deflation bandit. One would think with all the cameras out there that someone would have footage of a deflator grabbing a ball and sticking a pin into the hole to let air out. Unless the Pats hired former 3-card monte players as their ball boys.

    4. Obviously, every single person who was within a country mile of the footballs during the game is going to be put into "the box" for interrogation. My guess is that Two scenarios will come out of this: 1) Everyone will honor the code of silence and, short of video footage proving tampering, no one will be able to "prove" that this was deliberately done. Or 2) One teary-eyed line attendant will confess that he deflated the footballs, but did it purely on his own volition, because he had read the interview when Brady jokes that he liked deflated footballs so he did it himself with no orders from anyone, but because he's just a poor li'l ball boy and doesn't really know the rules he didn't really know that he was deflating it beyond league specifications (which do allow for a little leeway in inflation). The kid will be a media darling for a few weeks and then will be banned from football for life. A short time later, a large bag of $100 bills will anonymously appear on his doorstep as a payoff for falling on the sword.

    In any case, if deliberate tampering is proven, the whole book should be thrown at the Pats. I'd suspend Belichek for three regular season games, fine him $500K, fine the team $1 million and take away the Pats first round draft picks for two years. But forfeiture? Get real. When major league baseball starts making teams forfeit games when pitchers are caught throwing spitballs or batters used corked bats, and if the MLB takes away 200 of Barry Bonds' home runs and 100 of Roger Clemens' wins because of their steroid use, then maybe there would a slight--SLIGHT--case for harsher treatments.
Sign In or Register to comment.