Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Gotcha...so you're a Pats* fan...I'm shocked. Sure it does, just not anywhere near as much as it did on that day. The science does not predict footballs in the low 11's in pressure provided that NE* was honest about setting the footballs at 12.5 psi. As I said, if that one discrepancy were the only inconsistency, then perhaps the "no foul play" defense could be considered plausible. It's not even close to the only one. As I've pointed out before: A guy that calls himself "The Deflator" took footballs (after they were measured) into a room with no cameras, claiming that he had to use a urinal that doesn't exist. He stayed there long enough to remove an appreciable amount of air from 12 footballs. Those footballs were later found to be deflated to a degree that neither the Ideal Gas Law nor the Van der Waals equation can explain, even including all contributing factors. Those same two equations also cannot account for why those balls deflated more than the other team's balls. This same "Deflator" has dozens of incriminating text messages that implicate that the QB directs them to fill the balls to a certain degree. In fact, the organization in question fired said "Deflator" and his accomplice; an explanation of that has never been given by the way. The QB claims to (a) not know Mr. "Deflator" and (b) not have spoken to him or his partner in ball-handling about football prep, which he then goes back on in open court. He also destroys his cell phone containing all of his correspondence on the very day he's set to speak with the investigator about the controversy, claiming that he does so whenever he gets a new phone (which is proven not to be the case). He then goes on to provide, for both actions, what reads as the most twisted, convoluted testimony possible to explain his discussions with the ball handlers and his destruction of his phone. Moreover, we, as fans, are supposed to believe that Tom Brady, who petitioned the NFL to give QBs more freedom to prepare footballs the way they like, who meticulously and pedantically studies every aspect of the game (and game preparation), and who is on record as saying that he likes his footballs a bit lower on the pressure scale, provided absolutely no feedback to these two maroons regarding preparing the ball, and had no idea what they were doing? I'm sorry, but there's no explanation for all of this that fits in with the "I didn't do it" defense. But, it's all circumstantial and also presumptuous when considering all of the factors together. Meanwhile, "proper" application of the science, can account for the PSI drop in one fell swoop. Not that it matters anyhow, at least not as far as this arbitration hearing goes.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Except the science shown in this report is easily refutable by anyone who analyzes the data in an unbiased manner. Except that it isn't. The best rebuttal that I've seen--given that the gauge discrepancy has been cleared up--is that if the perfect combination of temperature drop, moisture, etc. occurred, only then could the football pressure possibly drop into past the 0.6 psi or so that the IGL would predict. And under those absolutely perfect conditions, what is the explanation for everything else I've laid out here?
negativo Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 And yet you still haven't explained why the Colts balls deflated at a 50% lower rate in the same conditions. Well, at least the 3 ball sample size the NFL "randomly" chose to report on.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 But, it's all circumstantial and also presumptuous when considering all of the factors together. Meanwhile, "proper" application of the science, can account for the PSI drop in one fell swoop. Not that it matters anyhow, at least not as far as this arbitration hearing goes. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and it's more than enough to lead to an obvious conclusion under the preponderance of evidence guidelines.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I don't know what this discussion is even about, but I have to ask: have you ever met a person who referred to a toilet as a urinal? I don't make it a habit of talking about urinals or toilets with others so wouldn't have a valid reference to use as a comparable for analysis.
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Except the science shown in this report is easily refutable by anyone who analyzes the data in an unbiased manner. Go on then.....easily refute it.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Well, at least the 3 ball sample size the NFL "randomly" chose to report on. It was 4 balls, and all were within the range and were deflated at a lower rate than the 11 of the * balls that were tested. I'd say it's sufficient sample size of both to establish a relationship.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 And yet you still haven't explained why the Colts balls deflated at a 50% lower rate in the same conditions. There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were. At best (as far as the Pats* are concerned), the science is inconclusive: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jun/22/deflategate-and-limits-science/ Legitimately, all of the circumstantial evidence points to foul play. The only rebuttal for that, as far as I've seen, is "it's circumstantial". Yes, it is...and it's pretty darn incriminating.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and it's more than enough to lead to an obvious conclusion under the preponderance of evidence guidelines. I agree and, if the science wasn't so poor in this case, I personally would convict.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were. Let's see - same officials' room, same time, same gauges, same field, same temperature. Yet one set of balls deflates at a 50% greater rate. But I know, Anderson didn't write down the PSI measurement, so everything is invalidated.
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were. Does Occum's Shaver dictate we assume atmospheric conditions on one side of an outdoor football field were pretty darn close to those on the other side? Or does it insist we assume there is a mountain range running through the field of play?
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were. Aside from the fact that the temperature variance needed to explain the drop in Patriot PSI is well outside the reasonably predicted actual range.....all of the other damning evidence must be taken into account. It is not a stand alone presumption, it is additional information that points towards the bigger picture of cheating. If one is driving at the speed limit and another car speeds past you....one does not need to have the radar clocked time on the other car, nor have the 100% accurate speed that one is travelling to know that the other car was driving above the speed limit.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Ha ha, there is nothing that I have enjoyed more this offseason than watching the Pats and their fans (you know who you are) defending their actions. They cheated and got caught and put together the most ridiculous cover-up ever. There are 4 year-olds that lie better (ie they called him the deflator because he was losing weight, no one did anything wrong but they fired the 2 guys, cell phone destroyed, etc...). I don't know if the science presented in Bill Belicheck's presser was better or worse than Brady talking about how he likes balls. The Pats cheated (again) and their legacy is forever tarnished. Deflating footballs isn't that big of a deal but lying about it is. When history looks back at them they will have 2 major cheating infractions that cost them 1st round picks, 2 incredibly controversial plays/tactics that aided in their Super Bowl wins (tuck rule, eligible/ineligible players), and a HOF player that is as genuine as A-Rod (and I am a Yankees fan). I would say to Pat's fans to stop defending the absurd but carry on. The hole to bury your legacy in can still get deeper.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Go on then.....easily refute it. It doesn't even require crunching the #'s (which I have done elsewhere in here). The science is very easily refutable simply by applying the fact that, without confirmed start and end points, the ideal gas law is not solvable, without making assumptions. Further, there were not any documented notes on R&R/calibrated gauges, wet/dry conditions, timing of measurements, etc) to properly conclude if the drops were caused by environmental or illegal tampering. Basically, the fundamental tenets of scientific discovery are non existent in any test that was conducted. Without these, there can be no support of a hypothesis and, since the results are not objectively measurable, no other person can conduct the test in a repeatable way to see if they can attain similar results by following the test conditions eactly. But, this is all about labour law and CBA; not the science. Edited August 7, 2015 by Pneumonic
negativo Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 It was 4 balls, and all were within the range and were deflated at a lower rate than the 11 of the * balls that were tested. I'd say it's sufficient sample size of both to establish a relationship. "Wells admits that the NFL referees did not bother to document the pregame measurements despite the Colts tipping off the NFL to their suspicions and the NFL warning the referees to watch for ball pressure." "Wells states that “the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half.” Ball 1 (11.80), Ball 3 (11.50), Ball 5 (11.45), Ball 6 (11.95), Ball 7 (12.30), Ball 8 (11.55), Ball 9 (11.35), and Ball 11 (11.35) all registered above 11.32 by Prioleau’s readings (Balls 1, 6, and 7 also did so by Blakeman’s)." "Apart from whitewashing the inconvenient truth that one referee judged a majority of Pats balls where Wells’s scientists said balls inflated to regulation before the game would read at halftime, this underhanded tactic enables Wells to gloss over the fact that three Colts balls lost so much pressure after a half, despite supposedly coming in at 13.0 to begin with, that they fell short of the NFL standard on at least one ref’s gauge." http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/12/top-10-reasons-why-an-appeal-overturns-tom-bradys-suspension/
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 At best (as far as the Pats* are concerned), the science is inconclusive: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jun/22/deflategate-and-limits-science/ Legitimately, all of the circumstantial evidence points to foul play. The only rebuttal for that, as far as I've seen, is "it's circumstantial". Yes, it is...and it's pretty darn incriminating. Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. Fingerprints, DNA, etc. Pretty much the only time something is direct evidence is when somebody actually witnesses the crime.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) It doesn't even require crunching the #'s (which I have done elsewhere in here). The science is very easily refutable simply by applying the fact that, without confirmed start and end points, the ideal gas law is not solvable, without making assumptions. Further, there were not any documented notes on R&R/calibrated gauges, wet/dry conditions, timing of measurements, etc) to properly conclude if the drops were caused by environmental or illegal tampering. Basically, the fundamental tenets of scientific discovery are non existent in any test that was conducted. Without these, there can be no support of a hypothesis and, since the results are not objectively measurable, no other person can conduct the test in a repeatable way to see if they can attain similar results by following the test conditions eactly. this is freakin' classic. How pathetic Edited August 7, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 If one is driving at the speed limit and another car speeds past you....one does not need to have the radar clocked time on the other car, nor have the 100% accurate speed that one is travelling to know that the other car was driving above the speed limit. But, if the radar system used wasn't properly calibrated and gave false speed results, does it matter?
Matt in KC Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 It doesn't even require crunching the #'s (which I have done elsewhere in here). The science is very easily refutable simply by applying the fact that, without confirmed start and end points, the ideal gas law is not solvable, without making assumptions. Further, there were not any documented notes on R&R/calibrated gauges, wet/dry conditions, timing of measurements, etc) to properly conclude if the drops were caused by environmental or illegal tampering. Basically, the fundamental tenets of scientific discovery are non existent in any test that was conducted. Without these, there can be no support of a hypothesis and, since the results are not objectively measurable, no other person can conduct the test in a repeatable way to see if they can attain similar results by following the test conditions eactly. But, this is all about labour law and CBA; not the science. Does anyone at all refute that the officials set the balls to 12.5 psi according to one of the gauges before the game? The balls would have to get 80+ degrees colder to explain a 10% difference in pressure (assuming the same amount of air was in the balls and air pressure did not change significantly).
Recommended Posts