Burnspot
Who Me?
Way too much talk about people's balls in here...just sayin'.
Setting the Record Straight about Deflate-gate
- Thread starter Fred W
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
Bearly Flying
Well-known member
So why didn't the other Teams ball's show the same decrease?
El Toro Joe
FYYFF
They don't have that problem with hockey pucks.
Warchild
Benevolent Dictator
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
Damnit El Toro Jose, don't call my Canuck friend Bearly Flying a Hockey Puck! JSNS, eh!
PS to Don: On behalf of Estados Unidos, I apologize for that slur from El Toro Joe! Hoser!
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to rub my crystal ball and tell you exactly how this ball pressure scandal all came about:
As anyone who has been reading much of the hype about this already knows, the NFL rules require each team to supply a dozen balls (2 dozen in inclement weather. What the heck happened to the second dozen?) to game officials, exactly 2 hours and 15 minutes prior to game time. These balls are for their own offenses to use while on the field. Kicking balls are different (Identified with a "K" on the ball), are all brand new right out of the box balls, inflated and prepared only by the officials, and both teams then share the same set of K balls throughout the game.
The reason this "bring your own ball" rule was adopted was so that the teams can doctor up their own balls to their quarterback's preferences. So, why not just always use brand new balls and have both teams use the same set of 12 or 24 balls? Because fans prefer high scoring games so the league wants to generate more offense.
After the teams drop off their bag full of (pre-doctored up) game balls the officials are required to inspect them and determine that they are fit for play by the rules. They look at the surface of the leather to be certain they haven't modified excessively, and are required to measure the dimensions, the weight, and the inflation pressures to ensure they meets NFL Rule 2 Section 1 specifications. From that rule, ball pressure is supposed to be 13 psi +/- 1/2 psi (12.5 - 13.5 psi) but no temperature spec is provided, nor is any guidance given as to the instrument to be used or the required accuracy of that instrument.
My crystal ball suggests that, perhaps since there had never previously been an issue raised in the NFL over game ball pressures, the Refs only gave those game balls a good once over visually, and maybe a quick "squeeze test" for the pressure, and then stuffed them all back into their respective ball bags until game time. Little did they know that the exact ball pressure would be brought into question as a means to discredit one of the teams.
There has been a statement made that the refs did not weigh any of the balls. Ouch. Where is the outcry for that? Maybe the Pats balls were lighter weight than normal. But it has been insinuated by the officials that they did check the pressure prior to the game. However they did not allude to how they checked it, or with what instrument they checked them, nor has there been any official statement as to what the pressures actually were at either this required pre-game or even the investigatory halftime checks.
It is very hard to feel a difference between two footballs inflated differently by only "about 2 psi". If you had those two balls in hand to compare to each other you could say, yes this one is slightly softer. But just a squeeze test looking for under or over inflation is realistic.
The fact that the refs went on to handle these under-inflated balls extensively throughout the entire first half and did not notice a thing speaks to that. And (contrary to many rumors) even the defense man that intercepted the ball did not notice a difference in the ball pressure. It was a Colts equipment manager, who asked him for that ball after he brought it back to the sideline as a souvenir , who was the first to "notice it" and then start the accusations.
While everybody seems to already know that the Patriots are "constant cheaters", nobody has yet attempted to answer my question:
What specific rule, or rules, did the Patriots violate in the 2007 Spy-gate scandal?
I think most ardent fans will be surprised.
As anyone who has been reading much of the hype about this already knows, the NFL rules require each team to supply a dozen balls (2 dozen in inclement weather. What the heck happened to the second dozen?) to game officials, exactly 2 hours and 15 minutes prior to game time. These balls are for their own offenses to use while on the field. Kicking balls are different (Identified with a "K" on the ball), are all brand new right out of the box balls, inflated and prepared only by the officials, and both teams then share the same set of K balls throughout the game.
The reason this "bring your own ball" rule was adopted was so that the teams can doctor up their own balls to their quarterback's preferences. So, why not just always use brand new balls and have both teams use the same set of 12 or 24 balls? Because fans prefer high scoring games so the league wants to generate more offense.
After the teams drop off their bag full of (pre-doctored up) game balls the officials are required to inspect them and determine that they are fit for play by the rules. They look at the surface of the leather to be certain they haven't modified excessively, and are required to measure the dimensions, the weight, and the inflation pressures to ensure they meets NFL Rule 2 Section 1 specifications. From that rule, ball pressure is supposed to be 13 psi +/- 1/2 psi (12.5 - 13.5 psi) but no temperature spec is provided, nor is any guidance given as to the instrument to be used or the required accuracy of that instrument.
My crystal ball suggests that, perhaps since there had never previously been an issue raised in the NFL over game ball pressures, the Refs only gave those game balls a good once over visually, and maybe a quick "squeeze test" for the pressure, and then stuffed them all back into their respective ball bags until game time. Little did they know that the exact ball pressure would be brought into question as a means to discredit one of the teams.
There has been a statement made that the refs did not weigh any of the balls. Ouch. Where is the outcry for that? Maybe the Pats balls were lighter weight than normal. But it has been insinuated by the officials that they did check the pressure prior to the game. However they did not allude to how they checked it, or with what instrument they checked them, nor has there been any official statement as to what the pressures actually were at either this required pre-game or even the investigatory halftime checks.
It is very hard to feel a difference between two footballs inflated differently by only "about 2 psi". If you had those two balls in hand to compare to each other you could say, yes this one is slightly softer. But just a squeeze test looking for under or over inflation is realistic.
The fact that the refs went on to handle these under-inflated balls extensively throughout the entire first half and did not notice a thing speaks to that. And (contrary to many rumors) even the defense man that intercepted the ball did not notice a difference in the ball pressure. It was a Colts equipment manager, who asked him for that ball after he brought it back to the sideline as a souvenir , who was the first to "notice it" and then start the accusations.
While everybody seems to already know that the Patriots are "constant cheaters", nobody has yet attempted to answer my question:
What specific rule, or rules, did the Patriots violate in the 2007 Spy-gate scandal?
I think most ardent fans will be surprised.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
So sorry to have disappointed you.
yamafitter
Reigning NERDS Granite Lane Gold Medalist
FredW..... just one of the stormtroopers for the Evil Empire.
Interestingly the rule states that the balls shall be given to the referees for testing but the rule does not actually state that the referee must actually test each ball.
Having been involved too much on the administrative side of motorcycling racing I've seen all kinds of interesting interpetations of rules over the years.
Interestingly the rule states that the balls shall be given to the referees for testing but the rule does not actually state that the referee must actually test each ball.
Having been involved too much on the administrative side of motorcycling racing I've seen all kinds of interesting interpetations of rules over the years.
Last edited by a moderator:
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
+100, Zillion Times Gunny! Statement right here is why our Billy Fitz-yamafitter is the smartest man on our FJR Forum, next to Bust and odot of course! JSNS!
Last edited by a moderator:
yamafitter
Reigning NERDS Granite Lane Gold Medalist
Since you asked nicely Fred the ruling came from the Comissioner's use of NFL Rule 17 Section 2.
The League Office blew this one in most people's eyes by not releasing a clear statement and then on top of that the League Office then destroyed the evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
It figures that it would take a Canadian to answer a question about American football. 
Yes, the penalty was levied based on Rule 17, which made it all but impossible for the Patriots or Belichick to refute, since it is completely at the discretion of the Commissioner. But, the correct answer to my question was buried at the end that quote, and not made entirely clear.
The rule that they broke was that they were using the video tape equipment on the sidelines, not that they were taping the opponents' coaches giving signals. Most fans believe that it is illegal to video tape your opponents coaches giving signs. It is not, as long as you do your recording from the right place.
Changes were made in 2007 to Volume II of the NFL rule book that made it illegal to tape from the sidelines. To quote the pertinent changes n that link:
The intent of the above quoted rules changes was to eliminate the possibility of the team and players from benefiting from the video during the game in play. It is a common rule in most sports that the participants can't benefit from video during the game. The Pats were video recording (using a camcorder) not using a live video camera feed, or reviewing the videos on the sidelines, coaches booth, or in the locker room. It was established during the investigation that they only viewed those tapes after the game , not during it. That was why they (incorrectly) thought that they were within the rules.
The reason that it did not really matter that the league destroyed those video tapes is that, unlike what the public has been lead to believe, what was on those tapes did not actually matter. It was merely the fact that they had been taken from the sidelines that made them "improper", which was easily established, and also admitted to openly by Belichick and the Pats.
"Cheating" infers that you willfully and intentionally break a known rule to gain an advantage over your opponent. Just breaking a rule isn't cheating. That would be like a player jumping offside. On the other hand, when a defensive back intentionally interferes with a receiver, knowing full well that it is against the rules, that is cheating. But nobody cares about that because "it's just a part of the game."
In fact it was no secret to anyone that the Patriots were taping their opponents coaches during the games. They were doing it quite openly, and opposing defensive coaches were seen to "wave to the camera" in the tapes. The fact that it was done so openly infers that they did not know, or understand the new rule about only being allowed to videotape from within a booth If they were trying to "cheat" and "steal the signs during the game" they'd have certainly done a much better job of hiding it.
This thread (which I started, by the way) is about football, which is entirely for entertainment. You know, just for fun. If it doesn't fit into "Jokes and Fun" stuff then you are clearly taking it all far too seriously.
Yes, the penalty was levied based on Rule 17, which made it all but impossible for the Patriots or Belichick to refute, since it is completely at the discretion of the Commissioner. But, the correct answer to my question was buried at the end that quote, and not made entirely clear.
The rule that they broke was that they were using the video tape equipment on the sidelines, not that they were taping the opponents' coaches giving signals. Most fans believe that it is illegal to video tape your opponents coaches giving signs. It is not, as long as you do your recording from the right place.
Changes were made in 2007 to Volume II of the NFL rule book that made it illegal to tape from the sidelines. To quote the pertinent changes n that link:
Technically they were not "on the field" but the sidelines are interpreted to be the same thing in this context. If the Patriots had been filming the coaches signals from the inside of an approved video booth, as is defined in the last line of the changes, they would have been completely within the rules.
The intent of the above quoted rules changes was to eliminate the possibility of the team and players from benefiting from the video during the game in play. It is a common rule in most sports that the participants can't benefit from video during the game. The Pats were video recording (using a camcorder) not using a live video camera feed, or reviewing the videos on the sidelines, coaches booth, or in the locker room. It was established during the investigation that they only viewed those tapes after the game , not during it. That was why they (incorrectly) thought that they were within the rules.
The reason that it did not really matter that the league destroyed those video tapes is that, unlike what the public has been lead to believe, what was on those tapes did not actually matter. It was merely the fact that they had been taken from the sidelines that made them "improper", which was easily established, and also admitted to openly by Belichick and the Pats.
"Cheating" infers that you willfully and intentionally break a known rule to gain an advantage over your opponent. Just breaking a rule isn't cheating. That would be like a player jumping offside. On the other hand, when a defensive back intentionally interferes with a receiver, knowing full well that it is against the rules, that is cheating. But nobody cares about that because "it's just a part of the game."
In fact it was no secret to anyone that the Patriots were taping their opponents coaches during the games. They were doing it quite openly, and opposing defensive coaches were seen to "wave to the camera" in the tapes. The fact that it was done so openly infers that they did not know, or understand the new rule about only being allowed to videotape from within a booth If they were trying to "cheat" and "steal the signs during the game" they'd have certainly done a much better job of hiding it.
This thread (which I started, by the way) is about football, which is entirely for entertainment. You know, just for fun. If it doesn't fit into "Jokes and Fun" stuff then you are clearly taking it all far too seriously.
gmwalk
Member
This what all us Patriots fans have to say about Spy-gate and Deflate-gate:
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
Last edited by a moderator:
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
Similar threads
