#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[PhoSita]

Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.

All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country.  No idea whatsoever.

[CelticGuardian]

I can live with the punishment, the evidence isn't anything concrete but if we are not penalized, fans from all the other teams will completely lose their s**t. So for the sake of keeping haters out of mental asylums,  I'll accept the consequences. But like it's been said, the footballs wasn't the reason the Colts only scored 7 points... whatever, It's not like it will keep us out the playoffs.

[Granath]

Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.

All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country.  No idea whatsoever.

I'm going to say perhaps you should stop making assumptions. The 8 years I spent working in law enforcement says otherwise, though perhaps it's substantially changed since I put in my time back in the 90s. I doubt it though. It was a ****ty type of case to investigate then and I'm sure it's just as difficult now. I must allow that it wasn't my focus area so I don't have as much experience as some others do. We had a special group for those cases.

Now, shall we get back to football? Or would you like to pursue this conversation further?

[SHAQATTACK]

I just heard one of the most  HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure.   It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .

Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away

Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. 

It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....how shallow Brady's career has been , he is a weak person, on and on......smh ......

From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......

Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.     

I was embarrassed to even be listening to this .    My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......

We both were speechless for a few moments .



It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........


It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.


I think this man should be fired from NPR

[PhoSita]

Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.

All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country.  No idea whatsoever.

I'm going to say perhaps you should stop making assumptions. The 8 years I spent working in law enforcement says otherwise, though perhaps it's substantially changed since I put in my time back in the 90s. I doubt it though. It was a ****ty type of case to investigate then and I'm sure it's just as difficult now. I must allow that it wasn't my focus area so I don't have as much experience as some others do. We had a special group for those cases.

Now, shall we get back to football? Or would you like to pursue this conversation further?

I'm gonna stand on what I said above, with the addition that being involved with law enforcement doesn't exactly enhance your credentials on the matter, again with reference to the actual investigation and prosecution rates in this country compared to the frequency with which acts of that type are perpetrated.

[Granath]

I just heard one of the most  HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure.   It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .

Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away

Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. 

It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....

From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......

Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.     

I was embarrassed to even be listening to this .    My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......

We both were speechless for a few moments .



It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........


It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.


I think this man should be fired from NPR

Frank Deford?

Was this the rant? http://www.npr.org/2015/05/13/406227352/was-deflategate-about-tom-bradys-legacy-or-his-ego

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

[Donoghus]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather. 

[D.o.s.]

And as we all know, it's very important to be able to grip the football in inclement weather.


 

[PhoSita]

And as we all know, it's very important to be able to grip the football in inclement weather.


 

[rondohondo]

I just heard one of the most  HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure.   It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .

Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away

Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. 

It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....how shallow Brady's career has been , he is a weak person, on and on......smh ......

From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......

Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.     

I was embarrassed to even be listening to this .    My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......

We both were speechless for a few moments .



It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........


It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.


I think this man should be fired from NPR

it was Frank Deford.  He sounds like a lifelong alcoholic the way he slurs his speech. He is the worst. I have no idea how he has a job.

[danglertx]

Has an investigator ever had this much to say about his report in the media before?  That certainly makes me question just how deeply his emotions were into this case.  Look Wells, you had 3 months and 250 or so pages to make your points, I think we get it.

Wells might think he was neutral but his report certainly wasn't.  He only added the facts he wanted to "convict" the Patriots and left out everything else.  Hiring a suspect company to do fact finding also didn't help.

But there is a reason we separate our police from our prosecutors and our judges and juries.  And I think this case shows a prime example of why that is.  For whatever reason, whether to justify all the money he billed or possibly because maybe someone leaned on him and made it known the NFL will look badly if nothing comes out of this, Wells, or at least this report, definitely only reflected one view.

The entire process though was flawed.  Wells should have investigated.  Then presented the facts to a neutral arbiter.  The people involved should be able to present their own cases and then a decision on if some standard of burden was met.  Yeah, maybe Well's report showed a preponderance of the evidence.  It just seems suspicious that he knew the burden and HIS report of HIS investigation met that burden to HIM.  No kidding.  If you only put the facts in from your side it is kind of almost assuredly going to meet whatever burden you want it to.

I still haven't heard a good reason why which gauge used to set the beginning of the air pressure doesn't matter when it didn't seem to give the correct pressure by Well's own admission, or at least a different pressure than the other gauge.  How can you possibly make a conclusion based on the balls being 12.5psi at the beginning when the gauge used to measure them wasn't reliable and they might have started closer to 12psi?  The fact that there are two gauges in this that don't give the same results is just baffling to me.  Is air pressure in balls important or not?

Wells alludes to there being no evidence of a "sting" operation.  Where are all the emails and texts from that?  Did he ask for them?  Did he not find any evidence or did he not ask for any?  Did he look into leaks from the NFL offices?  Did he get Goddell's texts and emails?

Brady and his lawyers are going to rip Well's and his report a new one so I guess he better get on every morning show and sway public opinion as much as he can right now.

[knuckleballer]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

I would definitely agree with this.  What does "integrity" real mean to the league?  It seems to contradict itself, in regards to the term, at every turn.

The NFL throws that term around a lot.  Goodell has stated repeatedly that Wells has impeccable integrity.  Is it even human to have "impeccable" integrity?

[knuckleballer]

Has an investigator ever had this much to say about his report in the media before?  That certainly makes me question just how deeply his emotions were into this case.  Look Wells, you had 3 months and 250 or so pages to make your points, I think we get it.

Wells might think he was neutral but his report certainly wasn't.  He only added the facts he wanted to "convict" the Patriots and left out everything else.  Hiring a suspect company to do fact finding also didn't help.

But there is a reason we separate our police from our prosecutors and our judges and juries.  And I think this case shows a prime example of why that is.  For whatever reason, whether to justify all the money he billed or possibly because maybe someone leaned on him and made it known the NFL will look badly if nothing comes out of this, Wells, or at least this report, definitely only reflected one view.

The entire process though was flawed.  Wells should have investigated.  Then presented the facts to a neutral arbiter.  The people involved should be able to present their own cases and then a decision on if some standard of burden was met.  Yeah, maybe Well's report showed a preponderance of the evidence.  It just seems suspicious that he knew the burden and HIS report of HIS investigation met that burden to HIM.  No kidding.  If you only put the facts in from your side it is kind of almost assuredly going to meet whatever burden you want it to.

I still haven't heard a good reason why which gauge used to set the beginning of the air pressure doesn't matter when it didn't seem to give the correct pressure by Well's own admission, or at least a different pressure than the other gauge.  How can you possibly make a conclusion based on the balls being 12.5psi at the beginning when the gauge used to measure them wasn't reliable and they might have started closer to 12psi?  The fact that there are two gauges in this that don't give the same results is just baffling to me.  Is air pressure in balls important or not?

Wells alludes to there being no evidence of a "sting" operation.  Where are all the emails and texts from that?  Did he ask for them?  Did he not find any evidence or did he not ask for any?  Did he look into leaks from the NFL offices?  Did he get Goddell's texts and emails?

Brady and his lawyers are going to rip Well's and his report a new one so I guess he better get on every morning show and sway public opinion as much as he can right now.

It seems to me that Wells doesn't like having his reputation and integrity smeared based on "more probable than not" either.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.