Refs didn't actually check the game balls?

[Strongman]

Keep in mind that this is coming from a Boston area reporter. If true, it's a head scratcher and makes me say WTF!


Report: Under-inflated balls were approved by refs prior to AFC Championship game

BOSTON — Referees approved the footballs used by the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship game, even though they were under the NFL’s allowable PSI prior to the game, CBS Boston reports.

According to CBS Boston, sources said referees approved 12 game footballs prior to the game, and the under inflated footballs were perhaps not inspected properly.

From CBS Boston reporter:

One thing that has been reported this last week, as we’ve been learning about how footballs are treated before a game is that before every game, a referee measured with a pressure gauge each football to see if the pressure in each one is between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI.

But that apparently isn’t always the case. As a matter of fact, from what I’ve been told, many times the refs don’t test the pressure of each ball with a gauge at all. Sometimes refs hold the ball, squeeze it, briefly inspect it, then sign off on it. Next ball. It’s never been a problem before. This is apparently a well known fact in the NFL.

Now according to my sources, The Patriots turned in their footballs to the ref at a pressure just below the allowable PSI.

If it’s a situation where the refs DID use a gauge, the refs would see the balls were under inflated, and inflate them to the proper size. But in this case, the balls were approved and given back to the Patriots under-inflated.

Thus, the under-inflated balls. The Patriots, according to my sources, played with league approved deflated balls.


This is just the latest turn in the bizarre saga of Deflate-gate.

On Monday, the NFL reportedly interviewed a locker-room attendant who may have had contact with the footballs after they were handled by the refs.

http://q13fox.com/2015/01/27/report-under-inflated-balls-were-approved-by-refs-prior-to-afc-championship-game/

[Strongman]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-nfl-approved-under-inflated-balls-from-patriots/ar-AA8DMF1

98.5 The Sports Hub’s “Toucher and Rich Show” reports that the Patriots turned in their game balls slightly under-inflated and an official — presumably head referee Walt Anderson — signed off on them. The show’s source indicated that a pressure gauge was not used.


Complete BS!

[harmonkoz]

What a crock of s***. Good luck NFL. I for one am sick and tired of rules that are not enforced or enforced inconsistently. If this turns out to be true, there will be a s*** storm coming.

[harmonkoz]

Cue fartacus and his jizzed up z key, enlightening us on what this all really means. Thanks in advance troll.

[Meathead]

laziness on the part of the refs does not excuse intentional cheating on the part of the filthy cheating cheaters who cheat cheat cheat

[Strongman]

They submitted under-inflated game balls to the refs who signed off on them. I was wondering why, in Belicheat's last presser, who made the point that he asked the refs to "inflate to 12.5 psi." I thought that was an unusual thing to say.

You only ask to inflate something when it is under-inflated. The Cheatriots knew what the psi's were.

[YardRat]

So the refs are in on it with the Patriots. No ****, it's not like that hasn't been obvious for 15 years or more.

[feldspar]

Sounds like speculation...speculation on the part of Patriots-Land to explain it away.

[cookie G]

I'm Bob Kraft and I approve of this story.

[GvilleBills]

I'm Bob Kraft and I approve of this story.


and as a result, expect an apology from the league immediately.

[CommissarSpartacus]

And how do we know the balls wwere underinflated when the pats turned them over to the refs if the refs didn't test them?

Oh, that's right, a SOURCE says so.

And how does this SOURCE know this?

Hmmmmmmmmmm? Was he in the room when Brady gave the ball-boy his instructions?

I suspect if we ever see a picture of this "source", it will look suspiciously like the inside of someone's colon...

[jamze132]

Patriots and refs in cahoots? Couldn't be.

[upstart]

Bingo.... now STFU, as, I posted in the other thread...


The rule says the balls must be in the possession of the refs 2 hours before game time so that they can be tested for specs, it does not say that the balls must meet those specs when delivered to the ref. So, if the balls arrived underinflated and the ref missed it, no rules were violated.


I laugh

[upstart]

Go Pats Go.

Americas Team.

[upstart]

Life is good

[Skooby]

Life is good

For donkey balls ass deep cheaters, you'll get corn-holed with any luck now.

[Strongman]

So now it looks like the Refs did check the balls pressure before the game and the other news story is the Boston media trying to spin things.


League has no record of PSI in Patriots' footballs

When referee Walt Anderson checked the game balls for the AFC Championship Game, he did not log the PSI. He just approved them.

NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino was asked Thursday if the league has any proof beyond Anderson's word that the footballs were inflated to the required 12.5-13.5 pounds per square inch.

"We did review what happened pregame, and from everything that we reviewed and all the information we had, the balls were properly tested prior to the game,” Blandino responded, acknowledging there's no record of the exact PSI.

"And then there was an issue that was brought up during the first half,” Blandino said. “A football came into question, then the decision was made to test them at halftime. There's an investigation going on, I can't get into too many specifics but really that's the chain of events that occurred.”

The halftime check showed the Patriots' footballs were underinflated. The NFL is trying to determine whether it resulted from "deliberate action." The league has video of a Pats employee taking the Patriots' and Colts' game balls to the bathroom for 90 seconds, on his way to the field, per Pro Football Talk.

But now the league has admitted it won't be able to prove how much the footballs were deflated.

In this ongoing investigation, "a detailed log of the inflation levels of each football is a piece of evidence the NFL should have," PFT said.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25007276/league-has-no-record-of-psi-in-patriots-footballs

The bad part about this is without a record, it's just another hurdle to prove the cheating.

[Mace]

Well really, did anyone actually picture the refs checking 24 balls with gauges before each game ? They sign the paper.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Obviously Kraft paid off the refs. How can anyone not believe everything bad said about the PatriotsÉ

If it wasn`t true, they wouldn`t say it.

Only the Patriots lie. Their winning record proves it.

Everyone else doesn`t lie, and that`s why they lose.

Duh!

[Meathead]

For donkey balls ass deep cheaters, you'll get corn-holed with any luck now.

can anyone get in on this or ...

http://estergoldberg.typepad.com/.a/6a0105349ca980970c0133f0e96176970b-500wi

[harmonkoz]

Well really, did anyone actually picture the refs checking 24 balls with gauges before each game ? They sign the paper.

It sounds like they were gauged. The problem is that the gauged pressure was not recorded.


As for the investigation, Blandino said he could not comment on many details. He did, however, note that referee Walt Anderson checked and approved the pressure of the footballs used in the AFC Championship Game. Those results were not logged."Walt gauged the footballs himself,'' Blandino said. "It's something he has done throughout his career.''

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-to-have-super-sized-security-on-game-balls-1.9882249

[cookie G]

It sounds like they were gauged. The problem is that the gauged pressure was not recorded.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-to-have-super-sized-security-on-game-balls-1.9882249

And I really don't see the need for the results to be logged anywhere, or what it would prove.

As I see the procedure, it is this:

The teams present the potential game balls to the ref. for inspection;
the balls are measured (they use a cylinder, I think), weighed and the pressure is measured;
if the balls are underinflated, they add air, if they are over inflated, they take out air;

Once the balls are within the range of the rule, the ball is marked by the ref and put in a bag.

For all I know, a team can bring a completely deflated ball to a ref and it wouldn't matter, as long as he inflates it to the specified psi.

The mark by the ref certifies that he inspected and measured it, and it is within the parameter of the rule. The mark he makes IS his log, provided he is doing his job. It is like being stamped USDA Choice or "inspected by no. 12".

And if it is done every week like that, as the NFL is claiming...so what if the results of the condition before the ref inspected them wasn't logged?

Hell, the procedure would be admissible in a civil trial, which should have more strict standards than an NFL investigation.

Habit or custom, whether by an individual or organization, is admissible evidence under F.R.E. 406.

The logging issue is really nothing, at least to me.

[Joe Fo Sho]

And I really don't see the need for the results to be logged anywhere, or what it would prove.

As I see the procedure, it is this:

The teams present the potential game balls to the ref. for inspection;
the balls are measured (they use a cylinder, I think), weighed and the pressure is measured;
if the balls are underinflated, they add air, if they are over inflated, they take out air;

Once the balls are within the range of the rule, the ball is marked by the ref and put in a bag.

For all I know, a team can bring a completely deflated ball to a ref and it wouldn't matter, as long as he inflates it to the specified psi.

The mark by the ref certifies that he inspected and measured it, and it is within the parameter of the rule. The mark he makes IS his log, provided he is doing his job. It is like being stamped USDA Choice or "inspected by no. 12".

And if it is done every week like that, as the NFL is claiming...so what if the results of the condition before the ref inspected them wasn't logged?

Hell, the procedure would be admissible in a civil trial, which should have more strict standards than an NFL investigation.

Habit or custom, whether by an individual or organization, is admissible evidence under F.R.E. 406.

The logging issue is really nothing, at least to me.

I agree. I can't see a single reason under normal circumstances why you would need to record the original air pressure of the provided footballs. You pay the refs a very good wage in order to follow the rules. At some point, you have to trust the people you've hired to do the job.

[cookie G]

I agree. I can't see a single reason under normal circumstances why you would need to record the original air pressure of the provided footballs. You pay the refs a very good wage in order to follow the rules. At some point, you have to trust the people you've hired to do the job.


I also think that applies to the teams playing the game.

The other NFL teams have a right to trust that another team won't screw with footballs after a ref inspects them.

And I think that the "you didn't monitor us enough to prove our own cheating" is pretty lame, and definitely shouldn't be allowed to fly.

[swiper]

Well said cookie.

[CommissarSpartacus]

The other NFL teams have a right to trust that another team won't screw with footballs after a ref inspects them.


And is there ANY evidence that the Pats screwed with the footballs after the ref inspected them?

No.

None. Now, that doesn't mean the Pats DIDN'T DO it, but then that also applies to the Colts, the league or gamblers as well.

[feldspar]

And is there ANY evidence that the Pats screwed with the footballs after the ref inspected them?

No.



I realize that you are always right and all, but are you privy to ALL the evidence?

The answer is no, of course you aren't; in fact, you seemed to draw a conclusion as soon as the whole controversy started.

Why relentlessly defend the Patriots if you don't know what they did?

[CommissarSpartacus]

I realize that you are always right and all, but are you privy to ALL the evidence?

The answer is no, of course you aren't; in fact, you seemed to draw a conclusion as soon as the whole controversy started.

Why relentlessly defend the Patriots if you don't know what they did?

Have we seen ANY evidence so far?

No.

But hey, there are still millions of Americans who still think Saddam had WMDs, so I think the chances of you admitting the bleeding obvious in this case are pretty slim...

[CommissarSpartacus]

I realize that you are always right and all...

Why does this bother you so much?

It makes you feel better about yourself if other people are wrong all the time too?

[feldspar]

Have we seen ANY evidence so far?

No.



We saw that the balls were underinflated. Correct?

Is there a reason why the balls were underinflated? Of course there is. Do you know the reason why? No.

Now, if you can't explain the reason why they were underinflated IN ACCORDANCE TO THE RULES...that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason, does it? The reasons why certainly are not "obvious" to any know-it-all sitting on his fat ass at home. If YOU haven't seen any evidence as to the reason why doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence, either. There is nothing obvious here other than the Patriots' balls were underinflated from where your fat ass sticks to your chair.

I think that geniuses sometimes need to be reminded about commonsense, no? You tell me.

You don't know **** more than anyone else here, yet you pretend to.

[CommissarSpartacus]

We saw that the balls were underinflated. Correct?


Correct.

However, the fact the balls were under-inflated is only evidence of the balls being under-inflated.

That's it.

In no way does that indicate that the Pats are any more responsible for this than anyone else.

[feldspar]

Correct.

However, the fact the balls were under-inflated is only evidence of the balls being under-inflated.

That's it.

In no way does that indicate that the Pats are any more responsible for this than anyone else.

So you have enough information to draw your conclusions?

That doesn't seem like the thought process of somebody whose foundation is based upon reason, does it?

Yet you draw conclusions without enough information...not much better than those you attack, right?

Commonsense here. Nothing else.

Do you really think that the most likely scenario is that the Patriots had nothing at all to do with this? That wouldn't be the most likely assumption, if you were to make assumptions. And do NOT tell me that you aren't making assumptions. You are, when you aren't trying to play lawyer.

[cookie G]

Have we seen ANY evidence so far?

No.

balls were handed over to them in properly inflated condition;
balls remained in their possession;
balls were rechecked a few hours later, all the while remaining in their possession:
balls came up short on the recheck.
coach already said they weren't inflated under any special conditions, excepting some bs theory of extensive rubbing.


The NFL doesn't need videotape evidence of someone taking air out the balls, nor do they need an admission from someone saying "yes, yes ,it was me!"

If the Pats want to claim it was done by the refs, the enemy camp or a second shooter, that's for them to prove, not the NFL.

The ball is literally in their court.

[CommissarSpartacus]

balls were handed over to them in properly inflated condition;
balls remained in their possession;
balls were rechecked a few hours later, all the while remaining in their possession:
balls came up short on the recheck.
coach already said they weren't inflated under any special conditions, excepting some bs theory of extensive rubbing.


The NFL doesn't need videotape evidence of someone taking air out the balls, nor do they need an admission from someone saying "yes, yes ,it was me!"

If the Pats want to claim it was done by the refs, the enemy camp or a second shooter, that's for them to prove, not the NFL.

The ball is literally in their court.

Sorry, but you're demanding that the Pats prove a negative - that they DIDN'T do it - without a shred of evidence that they actually did do it.

This is what's so funny about all the this - the amount of argumentative cheating (logical fallacies, baseless assertions, dubious histories, utter falsehoods, intentional stupidity) employed by a group that is supposedly outraged by the Patriots sneakiness.

LOL!

How long are you guys willing to embarrass yourselves?

And now you're resorting to claiming the NFL don't need no steenking evidence?

:rofl:

I doubt that even Roger Goodell is immune from slander and libel charges.

Tell you what, would YOU laugh off accusations from your peers that you were dishonest and underhanded and corrupt?

I don't think so.

So, why should Kraft, Belichek or Brady have to put up with it?

Oh, that's right - because they're REAL cheaters. You feel it in your bones.

[Bill Cody]

balls were handed over to them in properly inflated condition;




That's the question at the crux of this right? My guess from the beginning of this was the refs gauged a few balls, felt the rest and threw them in the bag. Coleman can't admit that though can he? If he did he'd never work another playoff game. So yeah having the log would add to his credibility on this, IMO without any direct evidence to the contrary he's as likely or maybe even more likely the culprit on this than NE. The alternative is the ball boy risks going into a public bathroom with two large ball bags and in 90 seconds lets the air out or even more risky lets the air out on the sidelines in front of 70,000 people (which would be on tape). If Coleman says the balls were fine and the equipment guys on NE all swear innocence I think the league has a problem. Even a "low bar" of evidence requires something more than "the balls went down a pound or 2 in PSI but we don't know how so it's on you NE". Not sure that flies.

[CommissarSpartacus]

If Coleman says the balls were fine and the equipment guys on NE all swear innocence I think the league has a problem. Even a "low bar" of evidence requires something more than "the balls went down a pound or 2 in PSI but we don't know how so it's on you NE". Not sure that flies.

To put it mildly...

[YardRat]

Kraft, Belichick and Brady should have to put up with it because they have a documented history of skirting and stretching the rules. They made their bed, they have to lie in it.

[cookie G]

Sorry, but you're demanding that the Pats prove a negative - that they DIDN'T do it - without a shred of evidence that they actually did do it.

This is what's so funny about all the this - the amount of argumentative cheating (logical fallacies, baseless assertions, dubious histories, utter falsehoods, intentional stupidity) employed by a group that is supposedly outraged by the Patriots sneakiness.

LOL!

How long are you guys willing to embarrass yourselves?

And now you're resorting to claiming the NFL don't need no steenking evidence?

:rofl:

I doubt that even Roger Goodell is immune from slander and libel charges.

Tell you what, would YOU laugh off accusations from your peers that you were dishonest and underhanded and corrupt?

I don't think so.

So, why should Kraft, Belichek or Brady have to put up with it?

Oh, that's right - because they're REAL cheaters. You feel it in your bones.

They aren't being asked to prove a negative, they are being asked how their footballs lost 15% of their air pressure in just a few hours after being checked and being placed into their custody.

Nothing vague about that, it is a pretty specific question based on a pretty unique set of circumstances. There is nothing in the question about proving a negative.

Both their coach and their QB both stood up and said, "I/we have no idea".

The lying angle only came in after a number of former players and coaches called bull**** on their explanations.

[cookie G]

That's the question at the crux of this right? My guess from the beginning of this was the refs gauged a few balls, felt the rest and threw them in the bag. Coleman can't admit that though can he? If he did he'd never work another playoff game. So yeah having the log would add to his credibility on this, IMO without any direct evidence to the contrary he's as likely or maybe even more likely the culprit on this than NE. The alternative is the ball boy risks going into a public bathroom with two large ball bags and in 90 seconds lets the air out or even more risky lets the air out on the sidelines in front of 70,000 people (which would be on tape). If Coleman says the balls were fine and the equipment guys on NE all swear innocence I think the league has a problem. Even a "low bar" of evidence requires something more than "the balls went down a pound or 2 in PSI but we don't know how so it's on you NE". Not sure that flies.

That's all well and good, it wouldn't be the first time someone in authority claimed to do something that really wasn't done. It will take a little more than a "guess" to overcome the testing procedure.

It is akin to a player failing an NFL drug test. If a player fails a test, can they simply say "That test was bull****?" and walk away?

Josh Gordon is challenging his most recent failed drug test. Richard Sherman successfully challenged a test a few years ago.

But they didn't simply say, "eh, I have a feeling the testing might have been wrong".

No idea why the Pats should be able to get away with something like that.

[coastal]

The balls were in their possession 100% of the time?

yes?

pats have some splainin ' to do, and right now their sitting on their hands mute.

Check the bullsh1t logical fallacies arguments at the door. This is elementary school behavior.

[feldspar]

To put it mildly...

Let me ask you this:

If the Patriots were found to have deflated these balls illegally beyond any shadow of a doubt, do you think that they should be punished? If so, what do you think the penalty should be?

[chris66]

Let me ask you this:

If the Patriots were found to have deflated these balls illegally beyond any shadow of a doubt, do you think that they should be punished? If so, what do you think the penalty should be?
$25,000 1 psi is not going to make any difference as far as the game itself is concerned

[Strongman]

According to the reports, the refs inspected all the game balls, pregame, and all were found to be within NFL specs. This means, at most, the Colts' game balls were at most 13.5 psi and lost a maximum of 1 psi during a half. By all accounts, the Cheats' balls lost more than that (closer to 2 psi).

These game balls all come shipped from the Wilson factory pre-inflated to NFL specs and are filled under the same conditions.

I'd love to hear any rational explanation on how it's possible for the Cheats' game balls to lose more pressure than the Colts. Anyone who knows anything about science would be able to tell you the Colts' game balls should have lost more than the Cheats.

[CommissarSpartacus]

They aren't being asked to prove a negative, they are being asked how their footballs lost 15% of their air pressure in just a few hours after being checked and being placed into their custody.

Nothing vague about that, it is a pretty specific question based on a pretty unique set of circumstances. There is nothing in the question about proving a negative.

Both their coach and their QB both stood up and said, "I/we have no idea".

The lying angle only came in after a number of former players and coaches called bull**** on their explanations.

Yes, you are asking them to prove a negative.

They have answered the question with what could be an entirely truthful "I don't know." You're asking them to explain how they don't know. Of course, the reasonable answer is "How the **** should I know what I don't know?"

You know you'd never get away with this in court cu2 the judge would call bull**** on this.

DEon't think I don't know what you're doing and it's not quite as cute as you think.

Same thing for coastal.

But hey, if it makes you smile....

[CommissarSpartacus]

I'd love to hear any rational explanation on how it's possible for the Cheats' game balls to lose more pressure than the Colts.

The Pats balls were filled with warm air, the Colts balls weren't.

I've explained this at least a half do2en times. Pay attention.

[Strongman]

The Pats balls were filled with warm air, the Colts balls weren't.

I've explained this at least a half do2en times. Pay attention.

And it has been explained to you at least a dozen times from multiple people, if they are doing that, then it's cheating. They would have to be completely deflating the balls to do that, so it's obviously it's intentional. That's not the spirit of the rules and the Competition Committee will punish them in some way.

[cookie G]

Yes, you are asking them to prove a negative.

They have answered the question with what could be an entirely truthful "I don't know." You're asking them to explain how they don't know. Of course, the reasonable answer is "How the **** should I know what I don't know?"

You know you'd never get away with this in court cu2 the judge would call bull**** on this.

DEon't think I don't know what you're doing and it's not quite as cute as you think.

Same thing for coastal.

But hey, if it makes you smile....

And yet...you're saying they would they filled the balls with warm air.

So...they would have known.

And in court...neither Brady nor Belichick would be able to get away with what they did in their press conferences.

Unless of course, they would have pled the 5th...which they wouldn't have done.