#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[footey]

Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

[LooseCannon]

Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?

There's a difference between submitting balls that may have more pressure than allowed and tampering with the balls after they have been checked.  One is following established procedure, the other is attempting to circumvent procedure.

[LooseCannon]

Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL.  Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl.  The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season

I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage.  But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.

Spygate & sustained success brought that about.  The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.

If there is a double standard, it's not the Patriots vs the rest of the league, it's big market and marquee teams vs other teams.  Maybe there would be less media outrage if this were Jacksonville, but there would probably be similar scrutiny if it were the Cowboys or the Jets.

[Cman]

Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

TP. The most informative part of the post are the two charts near the bottom which the rebutted put together: fumbles per 100 rushes and fumbles per 100 receptions, which is where I would have started. Not surprisingly, NE is low on both lists. But so are other teams, notably GB. In short, the sharpfootballanalysis stuff is garbage.

[hwangjini_1]

ha, ha, ha...i never watch american football. i was curious what this thread was and clicked on it.

56 pages dedicated to footballs that are underinflated? ha, ha...i will never again complain about how trivial celtics' thread are.

carry on guys. 

[kraidstar]

Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL.  Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl.  The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season

I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage.  But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.

Spygate & sustained success brought that about.  The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.

If there is a double standard, it's not the Patriots vs the rest of the league, it's big market and marquee teams vs other teams.  Maybe there would be less media outrage if this were Jacksonville, but there would probably be similar scrutiny if it were the Cowboys or the Jets.

i strongly disagree with this, nobody cares about the jets except for new yorkers, and the cowboys are seen as buffoons, people would just laugh at both of those teams and then forget. the media members are humans too, and they're largely influenced not only by their own bias, but by the perceptions of the fans; catering to those fans generates viewers and web page hits (remember tebow mania?). and a lot of media people are remarkably unprofessional, hines ward is a perfect example, he's basically a childish fan posing as an analyst, and his coverage of the pats is pathetic.
as for the pats, their seemingly endless run of excellence and their image as a clean-cut, disciplined team have a lot to do with the scrutiny, a lot of people want to "expose" them as phonies.
this is likely in large part to the media's never-ending slobber-fest over BB's brilliance and the "patriot way", which is partially deserved but certainly goes over the top, a-la-brett favre. you can bet someone like hines ward got tired about hearing it a long time ago.
brady's good looks and model wife don't help, he doesn't cast the same fake "everyman" image that peyton manages so well, and, from the beginning, brady has been the winner, while peyton has been the underdog.
BB's surly attitude and vindictive nature also have made him a lot of enemies.
and then there's spygate, which some people still think was some sort of huge conspiracy and cover-up.
i really think the pats are a special case here.

[kraidstar]

Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

TP. The most informative part of the post are the two charts near the bottom which the rebutted put together: fumbles per 100 rushes and fumbles per 100 receptions, which is where I would have started. Not surprisingly, NE is low on both lists. But so are other teams, notably GB. In short, the sharpfootballanalysis stuff is garbage.

yep. the manning-era colts also had fumble rates even lower than the pats. so i guess manning was cheating too. (in all seriousness manning actually strikes me as super-OCD, so i really wouldn't be surprised if they actually are bending some rules. i just wouldn't make a federal case out of it.)
really with the fumble thing i think it boils down to teams having good coaching, good offensive players, and also when teams are capable of putting up a lot of points they don't need to take as many risks; a lot of fumbles come as a receiver is fighting for extra yards.

[BballTim]

Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

   That made my head hurt. From reading that. I'm not sure which party (the original post or the rebuttal) was more foolish. I'd hope that a college professor (let alone two of them) would be thoroughly embarrassed to have anyone read that. Two of the main rebuttals seem to be the use of ALL CAPS or the fact that one of his graphs didn't start from 0 (like you don't see that in about half of the graphs you see). I feel for the kids that have those guys for teachers.

[kozlodoev]

Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

   That made my head hurt. From reading that. I'm not sure which party (the original post or the rebuttal) was more foolish. I'd hope that a college professor (let alone two of them) would be thoroughly embarrassed to have anyone read that. Two of the main rebuttals seem to be the use of ALL CAPS or the fact that one of his graphs didn't start from 0 (like you don't see that in about half of the graphs you see). I feel for the kids that have those guys for teachers.

The original "analysis" is pretty much a piece of worthless turd, so yes, the caps are warranted. And the rebuttal is mostly appropriate from what I can see. The snarky tone is a little abrasive, though (I know, look who's talking ).

Also, the fact that you see a ton of graphs that do not start from zero doesn't mean that they aren't misleading. They are.

[Beat LA]

ha, ha, ha...i never watch american football. i was curious what this thread was and clicked on it.

56 pages dedicated to footballs that are underinflated? ha, ha...i will never again complain about how trivial celtics' thread are.

carry on guys. 

Ditto, lol.   I don't know about you, but I've thoroughly enjoyed seeing grown men talk about balls for the past week, ahaha.

[guava_wrench]

Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?

There's a difference between submitting balls that may have more pressure than allowed and tampering with the balls after they have been checked.  One is following established procedure, the other is attempting to circumvent procedure.

Yeah. Apples and oranges. GB is playing by the rules while hoping to get lucky.

[guava_wrench]

Quetzalcoatl and Donoghus: I get what you're saying about whining and deflecting—that would look bad, so it should be avoided. Fine.

I also get that the Pats have a huge target on their backs because of Brady, Belichick, and extended success.

But this is clearly a double standard, postseason or not. The Pats are being lambasted because they allegedly broke a rule that shouldn't even exist, and that the NFL has never seemed much inclined to enforce, and that is no more serious a violation than warming up balls on the sideline during a game on national TV.

Well, I think its a rule that should exist.  The parameters can certainly be worked out a bit (chain of custody of the balls, room temp to fill the balls, etc...) but I think there should be a minimum air pressure requirement for a football.  Like others have mentioned, the more deflated the ball, the easier it is to grip onto & catch.   In this instance, the difference has been compared to the weight of a dollar bill.   People aren't noticing that unless they're consciously looking for it, IMO.

I will agree that the media is making a mountain out of a molehill, though and the NFL isn't doing itself any favors with the leaks and relative silence on the matter.

I should clarify what I mean by "this rule shouldn't even exist."

I'm referring not to chain of custody, but to the "12.5–13.5 psi" rule. Every football fan knows that a ball has to have a certain minimum inflation to be usable, and that the whole "softer equals better grip" idea can be taken only so far—I mean, no quarterback is going to be able to throw a football that's literally inflated only halfway, like a flat tire. So maybe there should be a minimum, but that's probably lower than 12.5 psi. As long as it meets that low standard, let each QB have it the way he wants. I mean, imagine if MLB was so narrow as to say that bats could be only 33–34 ounces and only 36–37 inches long. In other words, MLB allows a lot of latitude with the tools of the trade, whereas the NFL doesn't.

I agree. While I consider the Patriots one of the more cutthroat franchises out there whose ethics are pretty much just win = good, I find the PSI minimum silly if teams are using their own balls. There may be a psychological benefit to certain players for under-inflated balls, but I don't see there being a material advantage. In fact, I see a material (but negligible) disadvantage due to the slower traveling ball when underinflated.

[footey]

NFL has retained NYC firm Paul Weiss attorneys, who have reached out to Columbia University Physics department, to discuss atmospheric influences on PSI.

The good news in this report is that the NFL is at least looking into this angle of explanation.

Hoping the NYC bias does not rub off on the attorneys and scientists!!!

[Cman]

Interesting new info per Mike Reiss (seriously, one of the best)
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777441/learning-more-on-how-referees-test-and-document-football-air-pressure

Of note:
1. The referees "gauged" the footballs before the game, whatever that means.
2. The referees checked two balls (if I understand correctly), and one was fine, one was underinflated.
3. They couldn't tell the difference between the two balls; the balls felt more or less the same.

Not sure what to make of all this. It seems to question the notion that there were a bunch of underinflated balls. It seems to call into question the idea that you should be able to tell the difference between inflated and underinflated balls (if the refs are looking for a difference and cant really tell a difference, then it would be hard for a player to notice much of a difference during a game). It is also really unclear what the refs did or didn't do prior to the game. Doesn't sound like there's a paper trail of some sort (ie, balls could have been underinflated to begin with, which would shift blame more on the refs, not the Pats).

[Roy H.]

Interesting new info per Mike Reiss (seriously, one of the best)
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777441/learning-more-on-how-referees-test-and-document-football-air-pressure

Of note:
1. The referees "gauged" the footballs before the game, whatever that means.
2. The referees checked two balls (if I understand correctly), and one was fine, one was underinflated.

As I understood the article, the refs filled every ball to a 13, and then tested a couple at some point?  Very unclear to me.

3. They couldn't tell the difference between the two balls; the balls felt more or less the same.

To be fair, the quote was that you couldn't tell the difference unless "you actually sat there and tried to squeeze the thing".  So, it seems like he's acknowledging that there's a difference, just that you're not going to notice it through casual handling.  Does a QB throwing a ball or a WR catching one work at a higher level than casual handling, though?

I'm more confused now than I've ever been.  I originally thought teams inflated their own balls, and then they were checked.  Then, I thought I read that the refs did it, but that teams could select their preferences.  Now, this is suggesting that every ball was pumped to 13 PSI.

Also, if this is so unimportant as to not be documented, then it's stupid to make this big of a deal out of it, period.  If the NFL wants precision, it should do things the right way.