Tired of Deflategate

[JohnC]

 

 

Well I am no expert in the rules of disclosure in the American courts but in the UK communication with family and trusted friends would not be exempt from the procedural rules on disclosure.

 

 

 

If Brady was communicating with his attorney his communications would not have to be shared. With respect to communicating with family and others for advice I wasn't referring to any legal procedures as much as I was referring to the fact that I would not share those types of communications with anyone else unless compelled to do so.

 

How many previous games did it affect? We may never know.

I would say none. You can say otherwise.

[thebandit27]

If Brady was communicating with his attorney his communications would not have to be shared. With respect to communicating with family and others for advice I wasn't referring to any legal procedures as much as I was referring to the fact that I would not share those types of communications with anyone else unless compelled to do so.

I would say none. You can say otherwise.

If it didn't affect games, why were they doing it?

[Mr. WEO]

If it didn't affect games, why were they doing it?

 

 

Obviously they thought it might.

 

Their belief system does not necessarily reflect reality.

[JohnC]

If it didn't affect games, why were they doing it?

He preferred lower filled balls just as Rodgers prefers higher filled balls. Some qbs like newer balls while others prefer used balls. It simply is a comfort level with the different feeling of the balls. That same type of issue applies to pitchers in baseball. Some pitchers work hard to rub the ball and some pictures don't like the feel of the protruding seams.

Edited July 6, 2015 by JohnC

[thebandit27]

 

 

Obviously they thought it might.

 

Their belief system does not necessarily reflect reality.

 

Agreed--the intent to affect the game, however, is there. Perhaps I misread JohnC, as he seemed to be implying that no intent to affect the game existed.

 

He preferred lower filled balls just as Rodgers prefers higher filled balls. Some qbs like newer balls while others prefer used balls. It simply is a comfort level with the different feeling of the balls. That same type of issue applies to pitchers in baseball. Some pitchers work hard to rub the ball and some pictures don't like the feel of the protruding seams.

 

All of that is very likely true, which--to me--implies that they did indeed intend to affect the outcome of the game. Increased comfort level = increased ability to throw the ball.

[JohnC]

Agreed--the intent to affect the game, however, is there. Perhaps I misread JohnC, as he seemed to be implying that no intent to affect the game existed.

 

 

All of that is very likely true, which--to me--implies that they did indeed intend to affect the outcome of the game. Increased comfort level = increased ability to throw the ball.

The issue of personal preference regarding balls applies to all qbs. What do you expect qbs to do? Prefer a type of ball that they are less comfortable with? As WEO pointed just because a qb believes he has an advantage with a type of ball doesn't mean that it is so. Brady in the AFC playoff game against the Colts played demonstrably better with the more inflated ball.

[Kelly the Dog]

He preferred lower filled balls just as Rodgers prefers higher filled balls. Some qbs like newer balls while others prefer used balls. It simply is a comfort level with the different feeling of the balls. That same type of issue applies to pitchers in baseball. Some pitchers work hard to rub the ball and some pictures don't like the feel of the protruding seams.

Do you see any difference in 1] the game outside being freezing and to keep the balls at a normal (not freezing) level the ball boys stood next to a heater, probably knowing it was wrong although hand warmers are indeed legal... versus... 2] knowing what the legal limit is on the balls, waiting until the officials measure them before the game to the lowest legal limit, stealing the balls from the referees before the game, taking them to a place no one can see, letting more air out, and then when asked several different times, denying it entirely.

[Doc]

Their pre- and post-2007 fumble stats shows deflating footballs had a major effect. Hence the reason they did it. No one cheats for no reason at all.

[JohnC]

Do you see any difference in 1] the game outside being freezing and to keep the balls at a normal (not freezing) level the ball boys stood next to a heater, probably knowing it was wrong although hand warmers are indeed legal... versus... 2] knowing what the legal limit is on the balls, waiting until the officials measure them before the game to the lowest legal limit, stealing the balls from the referees before the game, taking them to a place no one can see, letting more air out, and then when asked several different times, denying it entirely.

The case with the stickem on the balls in San Diego and the heating of the balls in cold weather along with the lowering of the inflation all fall under the same category of tampering with the balls. Especially with the stickem situation it is obvious that the stickem was administered after the referees checked the balls prior to the game. How is that substantially less of a transgression of minimally lowering the inflation level of the balls after the referees checked the balls?

 

The (assumed) infraction with the balls in New England had nothing to do with performance. In fact when the balls were reinflated after halftime Brady played better.

 

Where I strenuously disagree with many commentators on this issue is that I strongly believe that the level of infraction by New England is trivial and inconsequential as far as impacting the outcome of a game. There are offensive linemen who smear themselves with vasoline (against the rules). It is wrong to do and should be sanctioned. The sanctiion should correspond to the level of the infraction. In the New England case the situation was allowed to get out of hand because of the incompetence of the commissioner and his inability to perform his judicial responsibilities in a fair and reasonable fashion.

[Wayne Cubed]

How is the assumed level of ball tampering in New England different from the ball tampering in San Diego (stickem) and the heating of the balls during a game in cold weather by the Falcons? Compare how those cases were handled with the level of response with the deflategate issue. Where is the proportionality?

 

 

Obviously you haven't looked at these case or you would know that answer.

 

Firstly, the San Diego incident wasn't stickem. They were caught using towels that are coated in a sticky substance and rubbing the ball with them. The towels, at the time, were completely legal to use on your hands just not to be used on the balls. The attendant who got caught doing it had no idea it wasn't legal and admitted to doing it right away. The Chargers didn't hold a press conference and tell everyone that there is no way this could be true. It happened right out in the open and the officials saw it happen.

 

Let's look at the differences:

1. San Diego admitted the fault and cooperated.

2. They didn't attempt to hide it.

 

Secondly, the Falcons. Again, this offence happened in complete sight of the officials. Atlanta didn't attempt to hide that fact. The ball boy was attempting to keep the balls at the same temperature as they would have been when they were inflated. The Falcons didn't hold a press conference and deny any involvement.

 

1. Atlanta admitted the fault and cooperated.

2. They didn't attempt to hide it.

 

I'll ask again, what exactly is wrong about the process Rodger Goodell has chosen to take?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Wayne Cubed

[GunnerBill]

If Brady was communicating with his attorney his communications would not have to be shared. With respect to communicating with family and others for advice I wasn't referring to any legal procedures as much as I was referring to the fact that I would not share those types of communications with anyone else unless compelled to do so.

 

Yes I know communications with lawyers are legally privileged and not disclosable. However, the rest of your response is the rub.... I think there is something there he doesn't want to be seen. Whether you would disclose them or not is not the point.... if a court would make him and he doesn't want to for whatever reason then he will not go down that road.

[thebandit27]

The issue of personal preference regarding balls applies to all qbs. What do you expect qbs to do? Prefer a type of ball that they are less comfortable with? As WEO pointed just because a qb believes he has an advantage with a type of ball doesn't mean that it is so. Brady in the AFC playoff game against the Colts played demonstrably better with the more inflated ball.

 

Yes, I know all of that.

 

You seem to be implying it, so I'll flat-out ask: is it your opinion that Brady simply told the ball handlers to keep the pressure low, and had no clue that they were deflating the footballs to below the legal level, and in some cases doing so after they'd been taken to the field?

[zonabb]

Their pre- and post-2007 fumble stats shows deflating footballs had a major effect. Hence the reason they did it. No one cheats for no reason at all.

If you have proof that for every single game, the ball was deflated. Doesn't the home team inflate and manage balls? If so, then how do the home vs. away fumble rates stack up to this "science." Descriptive statistics alone prove absolutely nothing. No data on the inflation rates for balls for every single game the Patriots played, home and away, from 2007 onward, does not allow one to make a causal relationship. In fact, the only way to systematically prove that inflation rates impact fumbling, at a minimum, would be to know the inflation rates of every football for every carry, along with some measures, including but not limited to the type and force of each impact to the runner causing a fumble.

 

So their pre and post-2007 fumble rates showing nothing without the use of the scientific method. It's convenient for Patriot haters but it's about as astute and sophisticated as two 6th grade girls arguing over who is the cutest kid in the class.

Edited July 6, 2015 by zonabb

[Kelly the Dog]

The case with the stickem on the balls in San Diego and the heating of the balls in cold weather along with the lowering of the inflation all fall under the same category of tampering with the balls. Especially with the stickem situation it is obvious that the stickem was administered after the referees checked the balls prior to the game. How is that substantially less of a transgression of minimally lowering the inflation level of the balls after the referees checked the balls.

How you can equate those two things if you knew what happened, as Wayne showed below, is beyond me.

 

For the record, I have been likely the biggest Brady accuser on here and I don't think it helped him either.

If you have proof that for every single game, the ball was deflated. Doesn't the home team inflate and manage balls? If so, then how do the home vs. away fumble rates stack up to this "science." Descriptive statistics alone prove absolutely nothing. No data on the inflation rates for balls for every single game the Patriots played, home and away, from 2007 onward, does not allow one to make a causal relationship. In fact, the only way to systematically prove that inflation rates impact fumbling, at a minimum, would be to know the inflation rates of every football for every carry, along with some measures, including but not limited to the type and force of each impact to the runner causing a fumble.

 

So their pre and post-2007 fumble rates showing nothing without the use of the scientific method. It's convenient for Patriot haters but it's about as astute and sophisticated as two 6th grade girls arguing over who is the cutest kid in the class.

The officials inflate and manage the balls. The Patriots** were deflating them after the officials measured, inflated, and managed them. It's easier for sure to do it at home but they did it with a needle after it had been measured at home, too. So they could easily have done it for away games. I don't know whether they actually did or not, although McNally texted Jastremski in the middle of an away game they were losing and instructed him to deflate.

[Doc]

If you have proof that for every single game, the ball was deflated. Doesn't the home team inflate and manage balls? If so, then how do the home vs. away fumble rates stack up to this "science." Descriptive statistics alone prove absolutely nothing. No data on the inflation rates for balls for every single game the Patriots played, home and away, from 2007 onward, does not allow one to make a causal relationship. In fact, the only way to systematically prove that inflation rates impact fumbling, at a minimum, would be to know the inflation rates of every football for every carry, along with some measures, including but not limited to the type and force of each impact to the runner causing a fumble.

 

So their pre and post-2007 fumble rates showing nothing without the use of the scientific method. It's convenient for Patriot haters but it's about as astute and sophisticated as two 6th grade girls arguing over who is the cutest kid in the class.

Their fumble rate dropped by 43% after the rule was changed. Even a 6th grade girl could tell you what the most like cause was without having to provide definitive proof or whip out the scientific method.

[K-9]

How is the assumed level of ball tampering in New England different from the ball tampering in San Diego (stickem) and the heating of the balls during a game in cold weather by the Falcons? Compare how those cases were handled with the level of response with the deflategate issue. Where is the proportionality?

 

Do I believe that some air was taken out of the Pats's balls? I wouldn't be surprised that it did happen. Did it affect the game? No. The score in the Colt game was 45-7. In the first half with the "adjusted" balls the score was 17-7 in New England's favor. In the second half with some inflation of the balls the score favored New England by 28-0. The point being that there was no impact on the game by the supposedly questionable balls. It was well known that Tom Brady favored less inflated balls compared to Aaron Rodgers who preferred maximum inflated balls. Different qbs have different preferences not only regarding level of inflation but also relating to the texture of the balls. Some liked newer balls while others liked used balls. The point being that it is not unusual for qbs to have different preferences with their respective equipment staffs doing their best to accommodate their preferences.

 

Many people are making a big issue out of Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation, some would describe his behavior as being deceptive. There is another more benign manner in describing his response to the investigation. He was protecting his interest in this mushrooming situation. Tom Brady is not an inconsequential figure in the league. His attorney is a very accomplished attorney with a reputation for being aggressive. His attorney has represented other players against the league and has a record of defeating it. I am not going to criticize TB for aggressively pursuing his interest in this matter.

 

As I have stated very often this issue is more about the process than it is about the transgression. The category of infraction relating to balls has been handled demonstrably different in this case compared to the other cases.

I could spend hours regurgitating all the ways the San Diego ball infraction and the NE* ball infraction are different. I will only say that if the differences aren't readily apparent to you, there is no use in doing so.

 

Bottom line is that regardless of how picayune the infractions were, one team chose to cooperate fully and the other not only didn't do that, but the evidence strongly suggests a key player lied about it and chose not to cooperate as well.

 

I understand the strategy to obfuscate the issue by attacking the "science" and making it about Goodell's draconian measures, but neither have much to do with the case and the penalty assessed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

 

Yes I know communications with lawyers are legally privileged and not disclosable. However, the rest of your response is the rub.... I think there is something there he doesn't want to be seen. Whether you would disclose them or not is not the point.... if a court would make him and he doesn't want to for whatever reason then he will not go down that road.

I agree with your concluding comment about what the court can compel or not. If he decides to challenge Goodell's appeal decision in court his attorney will have to make the calculation whether it is a smart move or not. Sometimes incriminating communications can be offset by the totality of the case.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree with your concluding comment about what the court can compel or not. If he decides to challenge Goodell's appeal decision in court his attorney will have to make the calculation whether it is a smart move or not. Sometimes incriminating communications can be offset by the totality of the case.

Goodell has made dozens of disciplinary calls over the last few seasons. Are they all automatically wrong or suspect or is it just the big cases?

[JohnC]

I could spend hours regurgitating all the ways the San Diego ball infraction and the NE* ball infraction are different. I will only say that if the differences aren't readily apparent to you, there is no use in doing so.

 

Bottom line is that regardless of how picayune the infractions were, one team chose to cooperate fully and the other not only didn't do that, but the evidence strongly suggests a key player lied about it and chose not to cooperate as well.

 

I understand the strategy to obfuscate the issue by attacking the "science" and making it about Goodell's draconian measures, but neither have much to do with the case and the penalty assessed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

If Goodell's ruling is challenged in court the "science" and Goodell's rulings in this case and others will certainly come into play. You and most others are concentrating on a particular case. I'm not. The disciplinary process is very much a contaminated process because the commissioner has lost credibility in the manner he manages his disciplinary authority.

Goodell has made dozens of disciplinary calls over the last few seasons. Are they all automatically wrong or suspect or is it just the big cases?

Of course not. The drug rulings are consistent because the rules applying to that category of violations are straight forward and very consistently applied. In cases where there is public pressure RG has a tendency to act out of self-interest more so than act with objectivity. The Rice and Vilma are illustrations of that type of less than proper exercising of authority.

[K-9]

If Goodell's ruling is challenged in court the "science" and Goodell's rulings in this case and others will certainly come into play. You and most others are concentrating on a particular case. I'm not. The disciplinary process is very much a contaminated process because the commissioner has lost credibility in the manner he manages his disciplinary authority.

I can only hope Goodell's ruling is challenged in court. I've been hoping for that all along because then we'd get to see the thousand plus pages of the entire Wells report vs the summary we've all seen and Jastremski and McNally would be compelled to testify and Tommy's phone records made available. It will be interesting to see the futile attacks on "the science" in the face of that; the "science" will be rendered not relevant.

 

The "disciplinary process" in this case is pretty cut and dried. I find the comparisons to the Vilma and Rice processes lacking in relevant similarity.

 

GO BILLS!!!