It sounds like they were gauged. The problem is that the gauged pressure was not recorded.Originally Posted by Mace
http://www.newsday.com/sports/footba...alls-1.9882249
It sounds like they were gauged. The problem is that the gauged pressure was not recorded.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/footba...alls-1.9882249
The Dolphins Blow, the Jets Swallow, and the Patriots take it in the arse.
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.
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.
Well said cookie.
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.
My tebya razdavim
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...
Why does this bother you so much?
It makes you feel better about yourself if other people are wrong all the time too?
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.
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.
Last edited by feldspar; 01-30-2015 at 07:45 PM.
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.
coastal (01-31-2015)
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?
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.
upstart (02-01-2015)
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.
To put it mildly...
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.
YardRat Wall of Fame
#56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
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.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?
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.
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.
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 (01-31-2015)
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote