garzooma said:
A related question about these gauges, is the second decimal point on these gauge readings just a nonsense number that should be ignored?
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
A related question about these gauges, is the second decimal point on these gauge readings just a nonsense number that should be ignored?
While all that would be embarrassing for the NFL, and I hope it happens, why are some people so sure it impacts the Patriots situation?
Seems like a speeding motorist complaining about the speed trap that caught them. Yeah, the speed trap sucks -- you know the town is just trying to increase revenue, but they were still speeding.
EvilEmpire said:
Isn't it a little more like when they install the automatic ticket cameras at an intersection, and then reduce the time of the yellow light such that people get trapped, given that there's a law in place that states that the yellow cannot be shorter than a certain standard, and there would be messages on the police force about how they're going to screw the drivers because of this trick....and that the picture of the complaining motorist shows that he might not have actually been in the intersection when the light turned red but the photo is too blurry to actually tell?
Except that the motorist in this case got hit with a fine 40x greater than everyone else and was the first person ever sentenced to jail for this level of offense.EvilEmpire said:
EvilEmpire said:
Objectively, evidence of a sting should put the accounts of NFL personnel in the Wells report in question, in addition to Wells himself. Subjectively, I don't think it would change at all in terms of how the Pats are viewed.
I disagree with the last sentence here - if this goes to court and it gets proven that it was a sting operation by the NFL and the Colts then I think public perception would change. Not all the way to pro-Pats, but a fair amountEd Hillel said:
Big IF though.
tims4wins said:
Also, if it goes to court and all the evidence of the guy stealing balls comes out, and if the refs are noticeably implicated as well (not in causing the situation, but admitting that the pre-game values and gauges were false, etc), I think it would move the needle somewhat.
Pats haters hate the Pats, but everyone hates the refs, and I think to be able to say "yeah, but the NFL and the refs lied about the facts" would be a pretty good retort.
Shit, Anderson told the truth and the NFL basically said he was lying anyway. This whole thing seems more ridiculous each passing day.
tims4wins said:
The same people railing Brady for this are the same people who have been railing the Patriots for 7 years since Spygate, who ignored all logic about the Patriots performance post-Spygate and screamed "HAVEN'T WON A SUPERBOWL SINCE SPYGATE," and ignored that the Patriots were actually a better team overall than before. It's the same people coming up with desperate and illogical theories like the fumbling BS. The Patriots are hated and will never get the benefit of the doubt, which is partially Belichick's fault, fair or not (not). Maybe Brady's now, too, I don't know. The same people thought the Patriots got off easy for Spygate, and thought the Patriots got off easy now. It's probably best to just accept that's how it is, but to realize that, deep down, the biggest fuel for their anger is, in fact, jealousy. They also know these are relatively minor offenses that are not worth anywhere near the coverage they've been getting. Nobody would give a shit if this was, say, the Falcons. All things considered, it's a pretty good position to be in. I'll take the 15 years of joy the team has brought me, they can cling to this. But it is what it is, and there's not much that is going to change perception at this point in time. Ten years from now, I think it will probably be a different story, especially if Deflategate has set the precedent and teams start to get railed for this almost meaningless BS from here on out.
Fucker shouldn't have given the cop who pulled him over a hard time and then resisted arrest. The organization claiming that this only happened because they were "driving while Patriot" doesn't really help.
Interesting points here about (I) alleged improper delegation to Troy Vincent and (II)failure to consult with Dee Smith.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/brady-appeal-will-focus-in-part-on-delegation-of-authority-to-troy-vincent/
On the delegation point, it's commonplace to authorize someone else to do something that one is empowered and perhaps even obligated to do. But then it becomes difficult to argue that if Vincent is discharging Roger's function in this, Roger should have a separate review function. Then, I would argue, review should go outside.
But this is the NFL, which has never been embarrassed to argue anything.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/brady-appeal-will-focus-in-part-on-delegation-of-authority-to-troy-vincent/
On the delegation point, it's commonplace to authorize someone else to do something that one is empowered and perhaps even obligated to do. But then it becomes difficult to argue that if Vincent is discharging Roger's function in this, Roger should have a separate review function. Then, I would argue, review should go outside.
But this is the NFL, which has never been embarrassed to argue anything.
EvilEmpire said:
Even assuming Brady is guilty, he did what he had to do before the Superbowl, for the betterment of the team. There is certainly also some truth to the "driving while Patriot," which wouldn't excuse the original offense, but still contributed to the ridiculous punishment. The idea that a coverup is somehow worse than the original crime seems absurd to me, but it appears to be something the US sports fan society has espoused. Sure, you cheated/lied about it for 15 years (not referring to Brady, just a geeneral statement), that's one thing. But to have the temerity to lie about it after the fact!?!? THROW THE BOOK AT THE LIAR!!! LIAR! SOUNDREL! SCUMBAG!! LOW-LIFE!! To me, the original offense is almost always exponentially worse.
The angry mob of bitter fans didn't help, either.
It has nothing to do with Patriots' situation per se, their punishment is done and can't be altered. The Wells report is so gawdawful (and there's no arguing this, actual physicists have demolished the "science") that there's zero proof that any tampering occurred. You have to go by the readings as Anderson remembered them, including which gauge he used. Because that's the only way the math works. (In brief Anderson testified that he checked the Colts' balls and found them inflated to 13psi, if he was using the logo gauge the math works in both directions, if he was using the non-logo one as Wells contends despite Anderson's testimony, the math doesn't work at all and none of the Colts balls were filled to 13psi. But per the logo gauge all the Patriots and Colts balls were within the predicted range, so no tampering.)EvilEmpire said:
So there's zero chance that a neutral party looks at this case where there's zero evidence that the balls were tampered with at all and says "But the guy stepped into the bathroom, so even though there's zero evidence of tampering some tampering must have occurred". Combine that with the completely unprecedented nature of the punishment and the newly introduced and incredibly nebulous "generally aware" standard, and the NFL's verdict is going into the dustbin the minute it hits federal court (assuming that Goodell is stupid enough to let it get that far, but, let's be honest, no one's ever gone broke betting on Goodell's idiocy). The NFL could be stupid enough to go to court to fight this after the emergency relief is granted (but, honestly, I can't imagine that even the owners that have been egging the Ginger Knish on won't be calling him and telling him to quit while he's ahead), but then a lot of embarrassing shit about how the NFL office conducts its business will get into the wild. As of today Goodell has done a small amount of financial harm to the league with his handling of this situation, but if they pursue this that small amount of harm is going to get a lot bigger when the court documents make the NFL look like the WWE. So, no, when the suspension gets chucked they'll let this quietly die.
I was pointing out to domeone else that the Pats locker room attendant is prohibited from doing anything to the balls after they are certified.dcmissle said:
I agree there is no way the Patriots would argue that they or their quarterback suggested this was OK.
They could argue that this may have been done by an overzealous misguided employee.
One question (among hundreds) that I have is this. The punishment meted out for Brady and the Patriots was based on Spygate - prior infractions. But two things:
(1) Brady isn't a "repeat offender". He's never been remotely accused of anything wrong, ever. He's been as clean as they come. So it being "more probable than not" that he had a "general awareness" of some wrongdoing, and being a first-time "offender" gives him ZERO latitude? Gives him a 4-game suspension (and a $2 million penalty)?
(2) It is the *Patriots* that would be "repeat offenders". But the Wells report explicitly clears the Patriots' franchise (Belichick/Kraft, etc.) from culpability. So that means that the *franchise* isn't a repeat offender.
It's like punishing a franchise as a repeat offender when the first offense is a salary cap violation and the second is a PED violation by a player.
(1) Brady isn't a "repeat offender". He's never been remotely accused of anything wrong, ever. He's been as clean as they come. So it being "more probable than not" that he had a "general awareness" of some wrongdoing, and being a first-time "offender" gives him ZERO latitude? Gives him a 4-game suspension (and a $2 million penalty)?
(2) It is the *Patriots* that would be "repeat offenders". But the Wells report explicitly clears the Patriots' franchise (Belichick/Kraft, etc.) from culpability. So that means that the *franchise* isn't a repeat offender.
It's like punishing a franchise as a repeat offender when the first offense is a salary cap violation and the second is a PED violation by a player.
I'm not sure why anyone cares if it was a sting. A sting may be bad form by the NFL, but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They either did it or not. If guilty, how they were caught is irrelevant.tims4wins said:
It's not like the sting was the NFL having the refs tell McNally they were adding a little "extra" air, handing him a needle and leaving him alone with the balls.
How long is someone considered a repeat offender under that standard? Change in ownership? Coaching staff? Are the Raiders still on the hook for all their AFL/Al Davis shenanigans?ivanvamp said:
Suppose instead of deflategate, Belichick/Kraft were being accused of offering Brady a secret ownership stake in return for taking less money under the cap. This is a club violation, not a player discipline issue.
Does Spygate still apply as a previous offense, even that was related to Belichick's role as coach rather than GM? Should Brady be punished for being generally aware of a cap violation?
I think the center of my defense would be disproportionate punishment for similar offenses. It's easy and obvious in this case. It also is a core and fundamental reasoon why the arbitration process exists -- to ensure evenhandedness. With respect to the nonsense about cell phones and what the texts show or whatever, my front line argument would be that the NFL invented these "violations" by treating this alleged violation different from similar ones. If the NFL had ordered a five million dollar investigation, demanded Cam Newton's cell phone, conducted 4 interviews of the Panthers' ball boy, etc., they surely would have encountered similar events.
I would also want to get into the merits of the case against Brady, but how you do this is delicate. Judges do not like to make assumptions about bad motives unless the evidence is compelling. You have to be careful about how you pitch these arguments. You want the judge to conclude on her own that there was bad faith, without arguing it directly. You want the judge to get there on her own, because if she does she will be in your corner forever.
So, how would I pitch it? May argument would go something like this. A question that needs to be answered is why was the punishment here so disproportionate. There are two fundamental reasons. First, the league has become wildly successful -- the most successful in American sports -- by embracing an unwavering commitment to parity. It has discovered that giving every team hope keeps fans engaged and also allows them to sell games involving all its clubs on Thursday nights, Sunday night etc. the draft, the salary cap, the scheduling rules all reinforce this approach. The Patriots have, quite famously, resisted these efforts. They draft low, lose players from the salary cap, and play a hard schedule every year, but have sustained excellence. This has caused animosity in the league along with a "they must be cheating" sour grapes environment. I would support this with media reports and also take Spygate head on to show how different perception was from reality. Second, I would focus on the immediate aftermath of the Kravitz story and the Mort tweet. Even though they got the facts wrong, these events led to a media and firestorm unmatched in the history of sports. It hit a public culture nerve, and extravagent pronouncements of guilt were declared on nation news on scant evidence later shown incorrect.
It was in this environment that the league conducted its investigation and issued its decision. And, unfortunately the league fell right into the trap created by the two factors mentioned above. It asked its investigator not only to find and present facts, but then to give an opion about what the facts "probably" meant. Then, the league used that one man's opinion to set punishment. That was a serious error, and the environment in which the exercise was conducted led to inordinate pressure to reach that opinion. But no one man's opinion is more valuable than any other's. And as it turns out, one can take all the very same facts in the report and reasonably conclude it was more probable than not that Brady did not have a general awareness of a probable violation. Indeed one could take all the facts in the report and reasonably conclude it cannot be said the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of any violation at all.
Then, and only then, would I set out the report's deficiencies. In short, I think how this is presented is critically important, and one needs a very clear outline to explain why each issue is relevant without directly attacking motives.
This approach also has the advantage that, taking out hyperbole and trying to be as neutral as I can as a Pats fan, it is close to what I think actually is the truth.
I would also want to get into the merits of the case against Brady, but how you do this is delicate. Judges do not like to make assumptions about bad motives unless the evidence is compelling. You have to be careful about how you pitch these arguments. You want the judge to conclude on her own that there was bad faith, without arguing it directly. You want the judge to get there on her own, because if she does she will be in your corner forever.
So, how would I pitch it? May argument would go something like this. A question that needs to be answered is why was the punishment here so disproportionate. There are two fundamental reasons. First, the league has become wildly successful -- the most successful in American sports -- by embracing an unwavering commitment to parity. It has discovered that giving every team hope keeps fans engaged and also allows them to sell games involving all its clubs on Thursday nights, Sunday night etc. the draft, the salary cap, the scheduling rules all reinforce this approach. The Patriots have, quite famously, resisted these efforts. They draft low, lose players from the salary cap, and play a hard schedule every year, but have sustained excellence. This has caused animosity in the league along with a "they must be cheating" sour grapes environment. I would support this with media reports and also take Spygate head on to show how different perception was from reality. Second, I would focus on the immediate aftermath of the Kravitz story and the Mort tweet. Even though they got the facts wrong, these events led to a media and firestorm unmatched in the history of sports. It hit a public culture nerve, and extravagent pronouncements of guilt were declared on nation news on scant evidence later shown incorrect.
It was in this environment that the league conducted its investigation and issued its decision. And, unfortunately the league fell right into the trap created by the two factors mentioned above. It asked its investigator not only to find and present facts, but then to give an opion about what the facts "probably" meant. Then, the league used that one man's opinion to set punishment. That was a serious error, and the environment in which the exercise was conducted led to inordinate pressure to reach that opinion. But no one man's opinion is more valuable than any other's. And as it turns out, one can take all the very same facts in the report and reasonably conclude it was more probable than not that Brady did not have a general awareness of a probable violation. Indeed one could take all the facts in the report and reasonably conclude it cannot be said the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of any violation at all.
Then, and only then, would I set out the report's deficiencies. In short, I think how this is presented is critically important, and one needs a very clear outline to explain why each issue is relevant without directly attacking motives.
This approach also has the advantage that, taking out hyperbole and trying to be as neutral as I can as a Pats fan, it is close to what I think actually is the truth.
soxhop411 said:
Too bad Florio missed the opportunity to point out that these 2 alternate officials doing the measurements were in no hurry to get back on the field.
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer 3m3 minutes ago
And the Patriots are now publishing documents. Here's the initial letter from the NFL to thePatriots on this matter: http://wellsreportcontext.com/nfl-letter-to-patriots/ …
And the Patriots are now publishing documents. Here's the initial letter from the NFL to thePatriots on this matter: http://wellsreportcontext.com/nfl-letter-to-patriots/ …
Scott Isaacs @ScottIsaacs 7m7 minutes ago
Patriots team attorney Dan Goldberg just released a review of the Wells Report... we are digging through it now http://wellsreportcontext.com/ #wcvb
Patriots team attorney Dan Goldberg just released a review of the Wells Report... we are digging through it now http://wellsreportcontext.com/ #wcvb
Clearing BB and Kraft is not clearing the team. The team is responsible for the actions of all its employees. That's the frightening aspect of this if you are running the operation. You can have a first-rate culture of compliance, but the organization is only as strong as its weakest link on game day.ivanvamp said:
RIFan said:
If it was a sting, the only way the sting works is if the Patriots are allowed to play a half with deflated footballs. Now, if that happens, and if (which is the entire reason people would be up in arms) it provides a competitive advantage (as Francesa says, if it doesn't, then why would they do it?), then that means that the NFL, in its zeal to catch the Patriots, allowed the first half of the AFC Championship game to be played on a tilted playing field. They allowed the Patriots a material advantage over the Colts when such an advantage could easily have been prevented.
And if THAT is true, then the NFL is running a corrupt operation. Integrity of the game? LOL.
Morning Woodhead said:
Roderick MacKinnon is a bit of an odd choice to be the scientific expert, but hey, whatever.
Because a sting operation isn't playing nice in the "better interests of the league" sandbox/contract everyone signed? Because it shows intent to try to embarrass the franchise - potentially damaging it in the effort?RIFan said:
theapportioner said:
To be fair, Barack Obama, Nobel Prize Laureate was unavailable for comment.
Morning Woodhead said:
Still skimming it, but this jumped out:
Even after halftime, when obvious attention was being paid to game footballs and psi issues by League and game officials, who took control of the footballs at halftime, the security video shows Mr. McNally, with no objection, taking the footballs from the Officials’ Locker Room back to the field totally unaccompanied by any League or Game official. Mr. McNally’s removal of the footballs from the Officials’ Locker Room before the game began was simply not unauthorized, unknown, unusual, or in violation of some protocol or instruction. The report nonetheless portrays Mr. McNally’s departure from the Officials’ Locker Room before the game as a step in secretly taking the footballs for nefarious reasons.
Later on, "No air was added to or 4 released from the Colts game balls pre-game because they were all within the permissible range." Whoops, no substitute for a good copyeditor, folks. Spellcheck is not enough.
"dorito dink" is priceless...
12:21:46: JM “Whats up dorito dink”
12:22:53: JJ “Nada”
12:22:53: JM “Whens the pong party….im on fire”
12:23:10: JJ “Omg”
12:23:34: JM “Bring it”
16:29:48: JM “You still with your women”
16:29:59: JJ “Yup”
16:33:21: JM “You must have her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:34:39: JM “You must have a picture of her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:36:31: JJ “Omg”
16:37:16: JM “You working”
16:37:53 JJ “Yup”
16:39:40 JM “Nice dude…jimmy needs some kicks….lets
make a deal…come on help the deflator”
12:21:46: JM “Whats up dorito dink”
12:22:53: JJ “Nada”
12:22:53: JM “Whens the pong party….im on fire”
12:23:10: JJ “Omg”
12:23:34: JM “Bring it”
16:29:48: JM “You still with your women”
16:29:59: JJ “Yup”
16:33:21: JM “You must have her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:34:39: JM “You must have a picture of her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:36:31: JJ “Omg”
16:37:16: JM “You working”
16:37:53 JJ “Yup”
16:39:40 JM “Nice dude…jimmy needs some kicks….lets
make a deal…come on help the deflator”
People keep saying this, but it isn't true. Exponent goes into this on pages 52-55 of their report. The Patriots' balls, for the most part, are roughly in the range predicted by the ideal gas law assuming they were gauged outside at halftime, but we know they weren't gauged outside at halftime. As time goes on, the temperatures of the balls rises, which increases the pressure. Specifically, balls 9, 10, and 11 are difficult to explain (as are balls 2 and 4, which are low even assuming the logo gauge was used). That doesn't mean tampering, but it's false to say assuming the Logo Gauge accounts for the entire discrepancy.nighthob said:
At this point I probably resign as trial counsel for the NEP on the disciplinary matter because somebody -- Jonathan? -- has just blown my opportunity to get the sanctions reduced on appeal -- which would have constituted victory in this case.soxhop411 said:
mike freeman @mikefreemanNFL 5s5 seconds ago
"Patriots’ counsel requested to be present during interviews of such League personnel. That request was rejected."
"Patriots’ counsel requested to be present during interviews of such League personnel. That request was rejected."
tims4wins said:
I dont see a number that low in the chart below.
Where did they get that bogus number from?
One thing the Wells report and the Patriots' response can agree on: Jastremski and McNally aren't funny.
https://twitter.com/mikefreemanNFL/status/598872100913487872"]5s5soxhop411 said:
link to tweet seconds ago[/url]
"Patriots counsel requested to be present during interviews of such League personnel. That request was rejected."
Honestly, I would have rejected that request as well.
If "this isn't about the Colts footballs" was real and on tape instead of a theoretical sourced hypothetical it would ruin everything about Wells report. It at least shows bias to impeach his independent credibility as the NFL's appointed counsel. Contradict his statement no one took Colts email "seriously." If someone said that someone, a referee on crew, was participating in a "this" which Wells dismisses/minimizes under the broad umbrella of "policy discretion" re "ball security".soxhop411 said:
dcmissle said:
It's as if the lawyers are trying to outdo each other in terms of demonstrating worst practices.
To be fair, the Pats may have come to the conclusion that they aren't winning the appeal and so instead they've going to stage a street fight.
Enjoyable in any case.