If a bunch of jags on a message board (love y'all) can tear this up this quickly in their free time, I can't wait to see what the 1k/hr lawyers do parsing every phoneme come up with in a couple months.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Maybe McNally took the balls into the bathroom to TEST them. When they were all around 12.5, there was no reason to deflate them.
MarcSullivaFan said:
Isn't he there when the officials set the pressure?
{edit: Possible. Maybe he doesn't actually witness the gauging. Maybe he has his own gauge (with a release valve) that he uses to post-check the balls and release air until his gauge reads 12.5. We all know that there is great variance between gauges. In any case -it's illegal}
Dude I am fucking rolling at that answer. And then he's going to soft pedal the sideline argument as a discussion remembered differently by the parties.Ed Hillel said:
I'm gleeful.
geoduck no quahog said:
I understand that; the question is how you characterize the uncertainty on many of the key issues in the report.
The scientific expert report is, in fact, virtually all speculation---they had to assume the temperature at both ends, the gauge, and the initial readings. That means the conclusions have error bars so wide as to make them meaningless. One way to handle that uncertainty is to be explicit about it; a different way is what Wells did. If Wells said "we do not have sufficient clarity on several of the key inputs to know whether the balls lost pressure, and if so at what rate. Thus, we cannot conclude whether any loss of pressure was natural or artificially caused. We asked our experts to give their best assessment, and they have concluded it is more likely than not that deflation occurred at a rate higher than natural causes would allow" that would be a reasonable way to interpret the known facts. That is not what he did. The gap between that and what he did is some combination of inference, judgment, and bias. What portion is attributable to each is rather hard to be sure of!
People keep using the word "lie" when it's not so clear. Not remembering something as mundane as a bathroom stop and whether you pissed in a urinal or toilet without being reminded is not the same thing as a lie.geoduck no quahog said:
Not knowing Jim McNally's real name but instead knowing him by his long-time Patriots nickname of "Bird" is not the same as lying about knowing who he is.
I'm not saying definitively that no one lied. I'm just sayig that the Wells Report doesn't get my benefit of doubt considering other examples (e.g. painting memorabilia gifts in a negative light, when even people outside of football can easily surmise that it's a regular occurrence).
Edit: typos
The Jets game seems to be some sort of tipping point in this whole ordeal. Seems like if something nefarious was done, it was triggered by the balls coming in at 16 after the Jets game. The Patriots had 6 home games between the Jets game and the AFCCG. Why the investigation didn't bother to look at security footage of McNally's pre-game routine during those 6 games is beyond. You could maybe, you know, establish some sort of pattern.
Instead they write off the two witnesses the Patriots produce because they chose to take Walt Anderson's word for it.
Instead they write off the two witnesses the Patriots produce because they chose to take Walt Anderson's word for it.
MarcSullivaFan said:
Exactly. I threw out a theory about this on the last page.
There's really no evidence anywhere in the report to suggest that anybody (including Brady) ever wanted them under 12.5. On the other hand, there is a bunch of evidence that JJ and McNally were under lots of pressure to make sure they stayed at 12.5 during the pre-game process. Their first recourse was obviously to remind the refs to keep them at 12.5. But NFL refs probably considered these guys jokers who had no right to boss them around and no doubt told them as much on many occasions. In that situation, Dumb and Dumber decide to take matters into their own hands.
The most likely truth here is that two idiots acted independently to make sure that balls stayed at 12.5, using means that represented slight rule violations (testing/deflating balls after ref check), but which were unbeknownst to Tom Brady and which never actually brought the balls out of compliance with NFL regulations.
geoduck no quahog said:
Deflating footballs isn't illegal. Deflating them below 12.5 is. We know Brady likes the footballs on the lower end, so McNally has been deflating footballs, but that's not the pertinent question. Was he asked to do them below 12.5? That's what's important, and another part of the report details that Brady specifically asked McNally to bring the rule to the refs.
Let's say McNally did, on occasion, deflate the balls after the refs inspected them, but only to 12.5 (because that's what he knows Brady likes) when the refs didn't comply with his requests. Sure, you can say "tampering with the balls after inspection is an infraction, it doesn't matter if they still were in the legal theshold", but then the whole "integrity of the game" and "competitive advantage" angle goes out the window, right? Obviously, this situation could never be proven, but if the misconduct by McNally is solely related to the procedure, and Brady is still using balls in a legal range of inflation, how is fairness in the outcome of the game being compromised? That's interesting to think about.
geoduck no quahog said:
The deflator text came in May 2014. To put it in better context, it is the month of May right now. What was the deflator deflating around this time last year? The guy is a ball boy, inflating and deflating balls is his job.
djbayko said:
It's still a relevant question. Deflating the balls to 12.5 in that manner, while illegal, is not an attempt to cheat to gain a competitive advantage.
Marciano490 said:
per YahooSports:
This is the piece people here have been waiting for. What I can't figure out is why the NFL wasn't more careful given that people have started raking their shit over the coals. I guess the last Well report made things go away, so...
Ed Hillel said:
I think the timing is actually the key, referencing when the referee measures them. Isn't it the case that:
1. Deflating footballs after the referee has measured them is illegal, even if the resulting pressure is above 12.5
2. Giving the referees a ball that is under 12.5 before they measure is not illegal (referee simply is supposed to inflate to within the legal range)
Still, my favorite part is that he's apoplectic that the party that had no standing to object to him at the outset has the temerity to complain about him now.Ed Hillel said:
Wow, that's a bold stance. Look, I'm not convinced of anyone's guilt yet, and I undersrand that the rule book deems 12.5 to be within the legal psi range, but I certainly believe that any attempt to manipulate the balls after ref inspection is somerhing that cannot be tolerated.Ed Hillel said:
troparra said:
I don't think he was the ballboy. I think he was the Offical's Locker Room Assistant and in that role had nothing to do with preparing balls pre-game...only to give the Officials blow-jobs and then carry their balls to the sideline.
And the rule seems to be clear: Thou Shall Not Fuck With The Balls After the Official's Have Marked Them"
Deflating footballs to 12.5, even after inspection, is a mere procedural infraction, the game is still being played with a ball within the legal parameters of inflation. There's no offense to the "integrity of the game" in that scenario, which means a small fine would be more than enough punishment.PedroKsBambino said:
ivanvamp said:
I agree with this. I haven't read everything there is to read on this case, but I think a lot of the next steps really hinge on the degree of factual guilt or innocence of Brady and Pats staff. Specifically:
- Did they deflate footballs after the refs had approved them?, and/or;
- Did the Pats deliberately and knowingly try to get under-inflated balls into the game? and;
- Did Brady know/request/instruct/approve of this? and;
- Did Brady or anyone else outright lie to investigators or the media about any of the above?
If the answer to all of those questions is No, then I think you go nuclear. If the answer to some or all of them is yes, then I think it becomes a more fact-dependent answer.
Okay, at least you agree that it isn't the only question.drbretto said:
But how isn't it trying to gain a competitive advantage? You don't don't know their motive. What if they want 10.0 but failed miserably or didn't have enough time or only had a needle with no gauge?
Furthermore, I'd argue the illegality of the action far outweighs the reality of on the field competitive advantage.
This is coming from someone (me) who isn't convinced of anyone's guilt yet.
Right. And even after then, Five months later in October 2014, he wasn't doing a very good job deflating if the ball was at 16 for the Jets game. It's a piece of out of place "evidence" that is so far taken out of context that it's laughably easy to point out how weak it is.troparra said:
Honestly, the report is just so self-contradictory that it's really hard to see how such a well known law firm and lawyer could produce this and not think to themselves I really need to be careful how I phrase the introduction.
rodderick said:
Well, clearly the "integrity of the game" is pretty subjective, given the post-inspection football infractions during the Vikings/Panthers game and what the Chargers did to their balls.
The current interpretation is all about the "integrity of roger" and how dissed he feels about being lied to.
Swingin Val: To say that which gage was used is not relevant is certainly not what Peter King said earlier this afternoon. Said according to what the higher gage registered at halftime, the average PSI of those balls was 11.49 while the minimum according to the Ideal Gas Law was 11.3, I think that seems like it certainly did matter.
Q: Did Tom Brady want the balls at 12.5?
A: Yes.
Q: Would this have been communicated to McNally?
A: Most likely.
Q: Did McNally deflate the balls after the officials marked them?
A: We don't know.
Q: If McNally had deflated the balls after the officials marked them, would Tom Brady have been aware of this action?
A: I'm not sure why he would be.
Q: Did the Vikings/Panthers manipulate game balls after the officials marked them?
A: Yes
Q: What was their punishment?
A: A warning.
Q: Were the Patriots balls under-inflated when measured at the half?
A: We don't know.
Q: Did McNally go into a bathroom with the balls?
A: Yes
Q: Why?
A: We don't know. Maybe to piss.
A: Yes.
Q: Would this have been communicated to McNally?
A: Most likely.
Q: Did McNally deflate the balls after the officials marked them?
A: We don't know.
Q: If McNally had deflated the balls after the officials marked them, would Tom Brady have been aware of this action?
A: I'm not sure why he would be.
Q: Did the Vikings/Panthers manipulate game balls after the officials marked them?
A: Yes
Q: What was their punishment?
A: A warning.
Q: Were the Patriots balls under-inflated when measured at the half?
A: We don't know.
Q: Did McNally go into a bathroom with the balls?
A: Yes
Q: Why?
A: We don't know. Maybe to piss.
I'm starting to think there's an economic class translation issue going on here. Wells wouldn't joke about something like this in text, and irony doesn't translate so well in this sort of thing.Joshv02 said:
It's part of the reason why I had to give an urbandictionary.com cite to a former colleague show that a defendant was using his work email to set up a drug deal.
Tape was deleted every 10 days, so at the very least they should have footage from the Ravens game.Joshv02 said:
Myt1 said:I'm starting to think there's an economic class translation issue going on here. Wells wouldn't joke about something like this in text, and irony doesn't translate so well in this sort of thing.
It's part of the reason why I had to give an urbandictionary.com cite to a former colleague show that a defendant was using his work email to set up a drug deal.
Wells thinks every "needle" in a text is referring to a football inflation needle.
This is what I've thought all along. It's the only explanation that fits with Belichick's answer as to what their procedure was (give them to the refs and tell them to inflate them to 12.5) and with Brady's insistence in giving the refs a copy of the rulebook to make sure the balls were at the low end of the legal threshold.pappymojo said:
It's the only thing that could explain them ever playing a game with a 16 PSI ball at home (McNally forgetting to warn the refs is a lot more likely than him forgetting to deflate the balls after inspection). There's also the very real possibility that McNally's "I'll take this to ESPN" jab is merely a product of him believing that handing the refs underinflated footballs is somehow against the rules.
Mike Tanier at Bleacher Report had the best and funniest take as he often does:
"Deflategate is just a fat pearl of sour grapes and anti-Patriots sentiment layered around a sand grain of an incident. The Clark story is a side effect of our growing understanding of domestic violence, not a relapse of the NFL's disease. McCoy is a disgruntled ex-employee firing broadsides. These are three molehills, not a mountain chain.
It's easy to play the NFL is in crisis mode angle these days, because the NFL will never not be in crisis mode, ever again.
The NFL will always be in crisis mode because NFL crises sizzle. They sell. We love telling each other how scandal-ridden the NFL is. It's like saying "the government is corrupt" or "major religions are hypocritical," but with exciting games to watch instead of political debates or sermons.
The NFL is also America's second safest conversational topic, after the weather. We can all criticize Roger Goodell in ways that we could never criticize the president or pope without offending half the people in the conversation. Onto the NFL, we project our national fears, failures and anxieties; the NFL's weaknesses make us feel better about ourselves.
Great Britain has the royals. America settles for King Roger and Bonnie Prince Brady.
Deflategate makes more sense as social satire than as an actual scandal. It's like Alexander Pope's Rape of the Lock, with cosmic forces warring over 0.7 psi of air pressure instead of a snip of a maiden's hair. There are flawed heroes, complex villains, high stakes, sneaky maneuvers and a shady cover-up, plus an investigation with the scope of the hunt for the Zodiac killer. All that's missing is anything, anything at all, that ever had any real impact on anything.
It's hard to overstate just how ridiculous Deflategate is as a story. It's not Watergate, or Whitewater or a similar scandal. It's the president got an expensive haircut with YOUR tax dollars-level scandal-mongering. It's not Spygate, Bountygate or even Bullygate. It doesn't deserve a -gate suffix. It's overindulgent, overwrought and absurd. And if you think it will be more than a footnote and a comment-thread taunt two years from now, ask yourself: When is the last time you thought about Bountygate, which had an actual player-safety issue at its core?
Brady should be suspended for the first quarter of the first Patriots game for violating a minor NFL rule; for his role in the Patriots' protracted and hyper-paranoid cover-up, he should be forced to shave off his beautiful hair. Similarly, for his constant persecution-complex pronouncements of innocence, Robert Kraft should be sentenced to eight hours in a room with people who actually believe him. (Darn right, Mister Kraft, it's all a conspiracy, except for the parts of your explanation that rewrite the rules of Newtonian physics. Now let us show you some proof of the moon-landing hoax.)
But when the entire world reacts to a pitcher with Vaseline on the brim of his cap like it's a president launching a secret war, the Patriots' instinct to circle the wagons is understandable. The NFL will always be in damage control mode when every ding in the door is perceived as "damage."
"Deflategate is just a fat pearl of sour grapes and anti-Patriots sentiment layered around a sand grain of an incident. The Clark story is a side effect of our growing understanding of domestic violence, not a relapse of the NFL's disease. McCoy is a disgruntled ex-employee firing broadsides. These are three molehills, not a mountain chain.
It's easy to play the NFL is in crisis mode angle these days, because the NFL will never not be in crisis mode, ever again.
The NFL will always be in crisis mode because NFL crises sizzle. They sell. We love telling each other how scandal-ridden the NFL is. It's like saying "the government is corrupt" or "major religions are hypocritical," but with exciting games to watch instead of political debates or sermons.
The NFL is also America's second safest conversational topic, after the weather. We can all criticize Roger Goodell in ways that we could never criticize the president or pope without offending half the people in the conversation. Onto the NFL, we project our national fears, failures and anxieties; the NFL's weaknesses make us feel better about ourselves.
Great Britain has the royals. America settles for King Roger and Bonnie Prince Brady.
Deflategate makes more sense as social satire than as an actual scandal. It's like Alexander Pope's Rape of the Lock, with cosmic forces warring over 0.7 psi of air pressure instead of a snip of a maiden's hair. There are flawed heroes, complex villains, high stakes, sneaky maneuvers and a shady cover-up, plus an investigation with the scope of the hunt for the Zodiac killer. All that's missing is anything, anything at all, that ever had any real impact on anything.
It's hard to overstate just how ridiculous Deflategate is as a story. It's not Watergate, or Whitewater or a similar scandal. It's the president got an expensive haircut with YOUR tax dollars-level scandal-mongering. It's not Spygate, Bountygate or even Bullygate. It doesn't deserve a -gate suffix. It's overindulgent, overwrought and absurd. And if you think it will be more than a footnote and a comment-thread taunt two years from now, ask yourself: When is the last time you thought about Bountygate, which had an actual player-safety issue at its core?
Brady should be suspended for the first quarter of the first Patriots game for violating a minor NFL rule; for his role in the Patriots' protracted and hyper-paranoid cover-up, he should be forced to shave off his beautiful hair. Similarly, for his constant persecution-complex pronouncements of innocence, Robert Kraft should be sentenced to eight hours in a room with people who actually believe him. (Darn right, Mister Kraft, it's all a conspiracy, except for the parts of your explanation that rewrite the rules of Newtonian physics. Now let us show you some proof of the moon-landing hoax.)
But when the entire world reacts to a pitcher with Vaseline on the brim of his cap like it's a president launching a secret war, the Patriots' instinct to circle the wagons is understandable. The NFL will always be in damage control mode when every ding in the door is perceived as "damage."
Myt1 said:I'm starting to think there's an economic class translation issue going on here. Wells wouldn't joke about something like this in text, and irony doesn't translate so well in this sort of thing.
It's part of the reason why I had to give an urbandictionary.com cite to a former colleague show that a defendant was using his work email to set up a drug deal.
But here is what I don't understand: if Wells took the texts as gospel, then shouldn't McNally's text that he would blow up the footballs the size of a watermelon be evidence that he wasn't deflating balls? Again, the Wells report, and Sheriff Rog, only took the pieces that they wanted to take in their judgment and penalty. Just another in a a huge string of inconsistencies.
Well, that's obviously a joke. People just don't joke about things that would implicate them.
Harry Hooper said:
What also could a dude possibly mean when he says "hey I got a big needle for you"?
Good theory, I think, but for point c. If McNally was surreptitiously trying to get balls at the right pressure after the ref check, I'd guess he was checking them by feel and using an inflation needle instead of an actual gauge to let a little air out when necessary. Doubt he would take the time to actually gauge them. Too risky. With experience, he could probably keep them close to 12.5 without a gauge, but given the speed and secrecy involved, I'd guess he wouldn't have the time to be precise.
Thanks for not only ignoring my point, but being a dick about it. Nothing you says addresses the comment in question, which is "the deflator" comment. So many people are pointing to it being a smoking gun and ignoring the real possibility he deflated footballs legally, which is why he called himself that.djbayko said: