#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,357
I thought the argument was that the numbers they wanted only kinda sorta worked if Anderson mis-remembered.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
There is none. I'll have to find the picture again, but the two gauges looked nothing alike.

Wells was out to fuck the Pats and he lied to do it in regards to the gauges.
I would desperately like to conclude the same, but is there really no logical explanation for this conclusion....even a color-able one? I happen to be attending a camp reunion in 2 weeks and one of the people there is a guy who works at Paul Weiss and worked with Wells on the investigation. I intend to have a civil and spirited chat with this young man.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
31,287
Deep inside Muppet Labs


Here is the pic of the gauges in the Wells report. They are clearly trying to show that the gauges look very similar, and this Andersen could have easily made a mistake in his recollections. Of course, look at where the ruler is lined up: not in the same place in both photos. A deliberate attempt to minimize the size differences in them.



Here's another view of the gauges. Pretty easy to tell apart now, eh?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,590
Hingham, MA
I would desperately like to conclude the same, but is there really no logical explanation for this conclusion....even a color-able one? I happen to be attending a camp reunion in 2 weeks and one of the people there is a guy who works at Paul Weiss and worked with Wells on the investigation. I intend to have a civil and spirited chat with this young man.
please please please record your conversation in the < .00001% chance he gets drunk and admits something he shouldn't
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
Sorry to rehash old ground, but can someone help me with the Wells's reports conclusion that Walt Anderson used the non-logo gauge even though Walt Anderson's "best recollection" was that he used the logo gauge?

On page 47, Wells "credited" Walt Anderson's recollection about football PSI levels witnessed in the pregame gauging as accurate and reliable, but did not "credit" Walt Anderson's specific comment that his "best recollection" was that he used the logo gauge during the pregame gauging of the Balls. Thus, Wells concluded that Walt must have used the non-logo gauge, despite Anderson's specific recollection to the contrary. This, notwithstanding Wells's painstaking point that Anderson was one of the "most respected referees in the NFL" and "widely recognized as exceedingly meticulous, diligent and careful" (page 47).

Wells then directs the reader to Section VII.B of the report (pp.115-118) for an explanation as to why Exponent concluded that it was "most likely" that Anderson used the non-logo gauge. In discussing generally the consistent differentiation in measurements between the gauges of.30-.45 psi (logo gauge measured higher than the non-logo gauge), the report concludes "Exponent's experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi. Exponent relied upon this information, as well as the fact that during the testing the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher than the Logo Gauge, to conclude that Walt Anderson most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge to inspect the balls prior to the game...."

I am sincerely trying to understand the logic of this conclusion. It totally and completely escapes me, but even giving Exponent and Wells the benefit of the doubt...what's the argument that the conclusion they made is logical?
So that's it....it's unanimous on this board there is no way to read Wells's explanation as to why he concluded that Anderson mis-remembered in this one instance, other than that Wells had to assume use of the non-logo gauge in order to conclude unnatural deflation?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,547
Pretty much. Unless you can provide an alternate theory as to why Wells took their word for everything else but on this one thing they didn't.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
Pretty much. Unless you can provide an alternate theory as to why Wells took their word for everything else but on this one thing they didn't.
I don't. I'm at a total loss. The logic of the conclusion is entirely groundless, as far as I can tell, but I would think that they'd at least figure out some way to make it possible if not plausible.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,413
So that's it....it's unanimous on this board there is no way to read Wells's explanation as to why he concluded that Anderson mis-remembered in this one instance, other than that Wells had to assume use of the non-logo gauge in order to conclude unnatural deflation?
Wells counted on Anderson's professionalism and memory in every other aspect of this situation. The only place he disputed it was with respect to the gauges. Since only one of the gauges (the one Anderson did not remember using) gave Wells the numbers he needed to paint the Patriots in a rule-breaking light..... voila.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
42,109
Rotten Apple
The issue of the gauge came up in the conference call. Here is the transcript on that. I will spoiler to protect mobile people.

Q: There is some question as to which gauge was used by Walt Anderson before the game, which one was used at halftime. I'm trying to follow the logic of how you came to understand or believe that he used the one that gave the lower readings before the game because if the other one was used, there's some question as to the readings being within the range that is explained by the Ideal Gas Law. Can you take us through how you came to that conclusion?

W: Sure. That's set forth in the report. I'm going to toss that to Lorin Reisner to respond to that question.

LR: Let me start by saying the question of which gauge was used by Walt Anderson to test the pressure of both the Patriots and Colts game balls before the game, it just doesn't affect any of the ultimate conclusions of the scientific consultants. The differences in pressure drops between the balls of the two teams was found to be statistically significant regardless of the gauges used to set the balls prior to the game and to test them at halftime.

And Exponent addressed multiple gauge scenarios in evaluating the statistical significance in their report in pages 5 through 12. Their statistical model accounted for the possibility of either gauge being used prior to the game. And that's in their report, Appendix A, and set forth in our report in page N, that according to Exponent, regardless, regardless of the assumptions made with respect to the gauges used pregame and at halftime, the measurements recorded for the Patriots game balls at halftime cannot be entirely explained by the Ideal Gas Law when applying for the most likely game conditions and circumstances.

Exponent also concluded that the difference in magnitude in the reduction of pressure between the Patriots and Colts footballs based on the halftime measurements was statistically significant. And Dr. Marlow, our expert from Princeton entirely agreed with Exponent's conclusion.

When you look at the report, Exponent controlled for any uncertainty as to which gauge was used. They conduct their transient experiments and game day simulations by testing two separate scenarios: one assuming the Non-Logo gauge was used and one assuming the Logo gauge was used. And that's what they reported in pages 47 and 55, 57 and 61 and in their executive summary.

The conclusion that Walt Anderson was most likely using the Non Logo gauge was based on a variety of factors, including thousands of tests by Exponent that showed that the Non Logo gauge read lower and the Logo gauge read anywhere from 3.5 to 4 psi higher. And the reports by both the Patriots that they set their balls at around 12.5 and the Colts set their balls around 13 and that Walt Anderson, off memory, that the balls were set when he looked at them pregame that the targets for the Patriots was 12.5 and the target for the Colts was 13.

That is most consistent with him using the Non Logo gauge pregame, and that was an important part of our analysis.

But I said at the beginning, it really doesn't matter. Regardless of which gauges were used, the scientific consultants addressed all of the permutations in their analysis.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
Am I obtuse? That explanation strikes me as a non-explanation:

Loren Reisner: "The differences in pressure drops between the balls of the two teams was found to be statistically significant regardless of the gauges used to set the balls prior to the game and to test them at halftime...Their statistical model accounted for the possibility of either gauge being used prior to the game...that according to Exponent, regardless, regardless of the assumptions made with respect to the gauges used pregame and at halftime, the measurements recorded for the Patriots game balls at halftime cannot be entirely explained by the Ideal Gas Law when applying for the most likely game conditions and circumstances."

Me: So even if the Logo Gauge was used, Reisner is saying that the drop in psi found at halftime was statistically significant beyond what the IGL would have found. Isn't that conclusion contrary to what every independent expert who is unaffiliated with Wells and Exponent found in their review of the data? i.e. That if the Logo Gauge was used pre-game, then the readings of the Patriots footballs at halftime were exactly where the IGL would have expected them to be. In fact, 8 balls were within the range of what the IGL anticipated; 3 balls were slightly over; 3 balls were slightly under. Do I have that right? Is there even a scientific dispute on this? According to Reisner, there is, but for the life of me, I cannot see how that withstands any scrutiny.

So are we to conclude that this is intentional obfuscation by Wells, Reisner, Exponent and the like, or is there some legitimate basis for their conclusion that it doesn't matter which gauge was used, as the IGL found the Patriots balls were unnaturally deflated. Moreover, if, according to Reisner, it was irrelevant which gauge was used pregame, then why even bother noting in the report that Anderson was wrong as to which gauge he used? Why not just ignore which gauges were used and say, "hey, it's irrelevant, Exponent shows that the IGL couldn't account for the drop in psi, regardless of which gauge was used."

I'm flummoxed.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
And the reports by both the Patriots that they set their balls at around 12.5 and the Colts set their balls around 13 and that Walt Anderson,off memory, that the balls were set when he looked at them pregame that the targets for the Patriots was 12.5 and the target for the Colts was 13.
I've copied the relevant part.

He's burying the loophole at the end of what amounts to five long paragraphs of talking (of course people don't talk in paragraphs, but note it comes after a lot of numbers, references, and piling on). LR spends a whole shitload of time talking about all this great evidence that relies on a basic assumption. Walt's ironclad memory about what the readings were.

It's, as you've noted and struggled with, all based upon Walt's memory being the ironclad linchpin for everything except for which gauge he used. Yet, if it didn't matter which gauge he used, they spend an awful long time and effort trying to pin Walt as having used the non-logo for some reason.

I could spend some time laying out all the different ways one goes about doing this type of work, but I'm pretty sure you can figure out why they need to spend all that time proving something they say isn't important.

or we could go back to My Cousin Vinny and the Brick scene.

 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Yes, Reisner was engaged in the classic tactic of talking a lot in order to seem as if he was answering a question that he was in fact dodging. His argument boils down to:

1. It doesn't matter which gauge was used because deflation was shown with both.
(Rebuttal A: No, it wasn't. Rebuttal B: So why select the one that makes your conclusions easier?)
2. We concluded he used the non-logo gauge based on the facts that (a) it reads lower, and (b) the teams set their pressure to specific numbers before the game, and I (Reisner) can name those numbers.
(Rebuttal A: The conclusion doesn't flow from the evidence. Rebuttal B: That's circular reasoning, because you conclude that the lower-reading gauge was used pregame based on the fact that there were low readings at halftime)

He's also factually incorrect on the notion of "3.5 to 5 psi higher", because the only public data we have - the table of halftime measurements - shows the same balls being measured by the two gauges coming in at 1-1.5 psi different.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,193
Waltham, MA
Sorry to rehash old ground, but can someone help me with the Wells's reports conclusion that Walt Anderson used the non-logo gauge even though Walt Anderson's "best recollection" was that he used the logo gauge?

On page 47, Wells "credited" Walt Anderson's recollection about football PSI levels witnessed in the pregame gauging as accurate and reliable, but did not "credit" Walt Anderson's specific comment that his "best recollection" was that he used the logo gauge during the pregame gauging of the Balls. Thus, Wells concluded that Walt must have used the non-logo gauge, despite Anderson's specific recollection to the contrary. This, notwithstanding Wells's painstaking point that Anderson was one of the "most respected referees in the NFL" and "widely recognized as exceedingly meticulous, diligent and careful" (page 47).

Wells then directs the reader to Section VII.B of the report (pp.115-118) for an explanation as to why Exponent concluded that it was "most likely" that Anderson used the non-logo gauge. In discussing generally the consistent differentiation in measurements between the gauges of.30-.45 psi (logo gauge measured higher than the non-logo gauge), the report concludes "Exponent's experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi. Exponent relied upon this information, as well as the fact that during the testing the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher than the Logo Gauge, to conclude that Walt Anderson most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge to inspect the balls prior to the game...."

I am sincerely trying to understand the logic of this conclusion. It totally and completely escapes me, but even giving Exponent and Wells the benefit of the doubt...what's the argument that the conclusion they made is logical?
I don't have time to dig through the Wells Report, but wienever we've discussed this bit here, Professor McKinnon's interpretation from The Wells Report in Context has always been helpful because it attempts to restate the verbose argument succinctly:

Why then did the Wells Report state that “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law”? This statement assumes that the pregame measurements on Patriots balls were made with the low gauge. Why was this assumption made? The main argument as best I can follow goes like this. Science consultants for the Wells Report tested a lot of gauges and found that the low gauge was more similar to other gauges. Because the pregame measurements as recollected by the Official agreed with the pressures pre-set by each team with their own gauges, it seemed more likely that the low gauge was used. Here is my concern about that argument...
https://wellsreportcontext.com/mackinnons-scientific-conclusion/

He then goes on to dispute the accuracy of the data, which is the thesis of his argument, and invalidates their assumptions.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
The fraud that was perpetrated in this report is pretty astounding, at least as to (i) the bait and switch about Anderson's memory being rock solid in all instances, other than use of which gauge; and (ii) the optical shenanigans with measuring the needles of each gauge against the rulers; and (iii) the report's insistence that Anderson most likely used the non-logo gauge, even though Reisner insists it's irrelevant which gauge he used.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,413
Am I obtuse? That explanation strikes me as a non-explanation:

Loren Reisner: "The differences in pressure drops between the balls of the two teams was found to be statistically significant regardless of the gauges used to set the balls prior to the game and to test them at halftime...Their statistical model accounted for the possibility of either gauge being used prior to the game...that according to Exponent, regardless, regardless of the assumptions made with respect to the gauges used pregame and at halftime, the measurements recorded for the Patriots game balls at halftime cannot be entirely explained by the Ideal Gas Law when applying for the most likely game conditions and circumstances."

Me: So even if the Logo Gauge was used, Reisner is saying that the drop in psi found at halftime was statistically significant beyond what the IGL would have found. Isn't that conclusion contrary to what every independent expert who is unaffiliated with Wells and Exponent found in their review of the data? i.e. That if the Logo Gauge was used pre-game, then the readings of the Patriots footballs at halftime were exactly where the IGL would have expected them to be. In fact, 8 balls were within the range of what the IGL anticipated; 3 balls were slightly over; 3 balls were slightly under. Do I have that right? Is there even a scientific dispute on this? According to Reisner, there is, but for the life of me, I cannot see how that withstands any scrutiny.

So are we to conclude that this is intentional obfuscation by Wells, Reisner, Exponent and the like, or is there some legitimate basis for their conclusion that it doesn't matter which gauge was used, as the IGL found the Patriots balls were unnaturally deflated. Moreover, if, according to Reisner, it was irrelevant which gauge was used pregame, then why even bother noting in the report that Anderson was wrong as to which gauge he used? Why not just ignore which gauges were used and say, "hey, it's irrelevant, Exponent shows that the IGL couldn't account for the drop in psi, regardless of which gauge was used."

I'm flummoxed.
I think what they're saying is that the key issue is not the drop in PSI per se, but the relative difference between the drop in PSI of the Patriots' balls compared with the Colts' balls. Whichever gauge you use, the Patriots' footballs dropped more than the Colts did.

Of course, this is actually explained by the fact that when they brought the balls in at halftime, they measured the Pats' balls first, which meant they were much closer to their actual outdoor pressure, but the Colts' balls were measured right before the end of halftime, which means they had 10-12 minutes to warm up and get back closer to the pressure they were when measured before the game. So it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
I don't have time to dig through the Wells Report, but wienever we've discussed this bit here, Professor McKinnon's interpretation from The Wells Report in Context has always been helpful because it attempts to restate the verbose argument succinctly:



https://wellsreportcontext.com/mackinnons-scientific-conclusion/

He then goes on to dispute the accuracy of the data, which is the thesis of his argument, and invalidates their assumptions.
Thanks djbayko.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,044
Nashua, NH
Ask him why they deliberately placed the ruler in different places in the pics of the gauges.

Hint: they did it to sell a pig in a poke.
Not only that, look at the scale of the pictures. Both rulers are about the same length in both pictures, but one looks dramatically longer than the other. Why? Because they zoomed further in on the first picture to make a short needle look longer.

Those photos sum up the entire report. Show everyone something that looks incriminating and hope they don't notice (or, in this case don't want to notice) that you've distorted things in multiple ways to do so.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,056
I think what they're saying is that the key issue is not the drop in PSI per se, but the relative difference between the drop in PSI of the Patriots' balls compared with the Colts' balls. Whichever gauge you use, the Patriots' footballs dropped more than the Colts did.

Of course, this is actually explained by the fact that when they brought the balls in at halftime, they measured the Pats' balls first, which meant they were much closer to their actual outdoor pressure, but the Colts' balls were measured right before the end of halftime, which means they had 10-12 minutes to warm up and get back closer to the pressure they were when measured before the game. So it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.
Plus the Patriots footballs were in an open-mesh bag on the sidelines and fully exposed to the elements (also used more in game play in the 1st half) while the Colts footballs were kept in a closed bag on the sidelines.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,413
Plus the Patriots footballs were in an open-mesh bag on the sidelines and fully exposed to the elements (also used more in game play in the 1st half) while the Colts footballs were kept in a closed bag on the sidelines.
Again, science explains all this. If someone really wants to know how it all works, there is so much information out there. At this point, anyone who denies it is willfully ignoring the reams of scientific evidence and experimentation that's actually been done. The more people look into it, the sillier exponent and the NFL look.

But none of that matters because the 2nd circuit CoA basically said that Goodell can do whatever he wants.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,743
Boston, MA
Why are you all still doing this to yourselves.......
Because there's a chance I'll be having a conversation at a reunion I'm going to in a few weeks with one of Ted Well's colleagues who worked on the report. I suspect he'll beg off the conversation, but I wanted to best understand the NFL's position on this particular instance of not going with Anderson's recollection.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,832
Michigan
Plus the Patriots footballs were in an open-mesh bag on the sidelines and fully exposed to the elements (also used more in game play in the 1st half) while the Colts footballs were kept in a closed bag on the sidelines.
The gauge switching also plays a role in this. The two officials switched gauges at halftime between measuring the Patriots' balls and the Colts' balls. There is no earthly reason why they would do this unless they both put the gauges down for some reason. They didn't just say, "Hey, let's switch gauges!"
So they must have done something after measuring the Pats' balls but before measuring the Colts' balls. My guess is they reinflated the Patriots' balls, then moved on to test the Colts' balls and then ran out of time. This would allow more time for the Colts' balls to warm up.
Of course, nobody asked the two officials why they switched gauges.

So ask the guy why they didn't ask the officials why they switched gauges.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
31,287
Deep inside Muppet Labs
There's no point in asking him anything. 8th grade science explains exactly what happened. Goodell and Kensil put a hit out on the Pats and doubled down with the Wells Report, which has already been discredited all over the goddamn place.

It was an ambush based on the profound stupidity and bias of the league office. PERIOD.
 

Bergs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
14,109
Because there's a chance I'll be having a conversation at a reunion I'm going to in a few weeks with one of Ted Well's colleagues who worked on the report. I suspect he'll beg off the conversation, but I wanted to best understand the NFL's position on this particular instance of not going with Anderson's recollection.
Get that fucker drunk. I'm sure SoSH will chip in on expenses.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
19,143
A Buick 6
They spent $5 million concocting a report to explain a ball deflation scheme, which wasn't borne out by the numbers, in a football game that ended 45-7.
 
Last edited:

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,318
Brewster, MA
I would consider going in disguised as a Jets fan. I would think he would be more likely to "confess" the details to someone who he believes supports the conclusion of the report.
How about a variation on the "good cop, bad cop" routine? Have him overhear an argument on the subject between a Jets fan and a Pats fan, then have the Pats fan leave and have the Jets fan engage him ... "Can you believe those Pats fans and their conspiracy theories?"
 

rbeaud

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
305
Orange, CT
I think what they're saying is that the key issue is not the drop in PSI per se, but the relative difference between the drop in PSI of the Patriots' balls compared with the Colts' balls. Whichever gauge you use, the Patriots' footballs dropped more than the Colts did.

Of course, this is actually explained by the fact that when they brought the balls in at halftime, they measured the Pats' balls first, which meant they were much closer to their actual outdoor pressure, but the Colts' balls were measured right before the end of halftime, which means they had 10-12 minutes to warm up and get back closer to the pressure they were when measured before the game. So it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.
I almost feel like it's a right of passage to post in this thread. Several times, I've wanted to rail about the accuracy of pressure gages. It's common to use a device 10X more accurate than the feature value. For the NFL to report x.xx psig, the gage should be good to +/- .001 psig (NASA quality stuff!). However, the reported value would be rounded up or down to the next highest whole digit (x.xx). As the link below notes, this is nerdy stuff.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1113318284/theory-to-nfl-deflate-gate-012115ive-retort-to-nfl-deflategate-012115/

Searching Google, it would take several hundred dollars to get a hi precision gage. Something tells me, like everything else, this wasn't on the NFL radar or in their budget. Basically, it's more probable than not the NFL gage was industry standard which would require rounding to the nearest hole psi (accuracy of +/- 0.5 psig rounds to nearest whole psig). The Exponent report is relying on differences of tenths or hundredths of a psi and claiming statistical significance. In reality, the reading cannot be trusted beyond "more than 12 less than 13 psig".

And why are the needles in the picture bent? I've done that when not paying attention to inserting the needle into the bladder. Wouldn't surprised to hear the Refs were indifferent to the care of the measuring equipment (as well as the values).
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,193
Waltham, MA
I almost feel like it's a right of passage to post in this thread. Several times, I've wanted to rail about the accuracy of pressure gages. It's common to use a device 10X more accurate than the feature value. For the NFL to report x.xx psig, the gage should be good to +/- .001 psig (NASA quality stuff!). However, the reported value would be rounded up or down to the next highest whole digit (x.xx). As the link below notes, this is nerdy stuff.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1113318284/theory-to-nfl-deflate-gate-012115ive-retort-to-nfl-deflategate-012115/

Searching Google, it would take several hundred dollars to get a hi precision gage. Something tells me, like everything else, this wasn't on the NFL radar or in their budget. Basically, it's more probable than not the NFL gage was industry standard which would require rounding to the nearest hole psi (accuracy of +/- 0.5 psig rounds to nearest whole psig). The Exponent report is relying on differences of tenths or hundredths of a psi and claiming statistical significance. In reality, the reading cannot be trusted beyond "more than 12 less than 13 psig".

And why are the needles in the picture bent? I've done that when not paying attention to inserting the needle into the bladder. Wouldn't surprised to hear the Refs were indifferent to the care of the measuring equipment (as well as the values).
This is essentially what McKinnon argued...and he used the NFL's own measurements documented in the Wells Report to show how innacurate the gauges were.
 

Myt1

Tweedydum
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
30,352
South Boston
Yes, Reisner was engaged in the classic tactic of talking a lot in order to seem as if he was answering a question that he was in fact dodging. His argument boils down to:

1. It doesn't matter which gauge was used because deflation was shown with both.
(Rebuttal A: No, it wasn't. Rebuttal B: So why select the one that makes your conclusions easier?)
2. We concluded he used the non-logo gauge based on the facts that (a) it reads lower, and (b) the teams set their pressure to specific numbers before the game, and I (Reisner) can name those numbers.
(Rebuttal A: The conclusion doesn't flow from the evidence. Rebuttal B: That's circular reasoning, because you conclude that the lower-reading gauge was used pregame based on the fact that there were low readings at halftime)

He's also factually incorrect on the notion of "3.5 to 5 psi higher", because the only public data we have - the table of halftime measurements - shows the same balls being measured by the two gauges coming in at 1-1.5 psi different.
Yes to all of this, especially the beginning.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,428
The gauge switching also plays a role in this. The two officials switched gauges at halftime between measuring the Patriots' balls and the Colts' balls. There is no earthly reason why they would do this unless they both put the gauges down for some reason. They didn't just say, "Hey, let's switch gauges!"
So they must have done something after measuring the Pats' balls but before measuring the Colts' balls. My guess is they reinflated the Patriots' balls, then moved on to test the Colts' balls and then ran out of time. This would allow more time for the Colts' balls to warm up.
Of course, nobody asked the two officials why they switched gauges.

So ask the guy why they didn't ask the officials why they switched gauges.
Is there a bigger tell that the whole thing is a fraud than that they pretend they don't know the order of events at halftime as if they couldn't ask everyone who was there, or that they got different answers from different people so some had to be lying? If there is, maybe it's that both teams' gauges conveniently disappeared so they couldn't be compared to Anderson's?
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
12,128
Seattle, WA
Their argument is simplistic.
  • If both the Patriots and the Colts used their own gauges to pre-set footballs to 12.5 & 13.0, and since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Non-Logo gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably higher than allowed.
I never understood that. Why not:

...since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Logo Gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably lower than allowed.

Am I missing something. Do I care?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
7,596
Springfield, VA
Is there a bigger tell that the whole thing is a fraud than that they pretend they don't know the order of events at halftime as if they couldn't ask everyone who was there, or that they got different answers from different people so some had to be lying? If there is, maybe it's that both teams' gauges conveniently disappeared so they couldn't be compared to Anderson's?
I'm surprised that no one else mentioned this in any of the legal filings. That always seemed suspicious to me, too, though probably it's a matter of the keystone kops in NFL Security seizing the gauges during the pre-Wells investigation and then losing them.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,193
Waltham, MA
Their argument is simplistic.
  • If both the Patriots and the Colts used their own gauges to pre-set footballs to 12.5 & 13.0, and since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Non-Logo gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably higher than allowed.
I never understood that. Why not:

...since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Logo Gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably lower than allowed.

Am I missing something. Do I care?
Yes, you have it slightly incorrect.
  • If both the Patriots and the Colts used their own gauges to pre-set footballs to 12.5 & 13.0, and since the Non-Logo Gauge reads similar to other gauges reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Non-Logo gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably different higher than allowed.
It's actually a pretty sensible argument, but it is easily disputed by the inaccuracy of the (and lack of recorded) data. It also assumes that both of the teams' gauges were not also abnormal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,857
Except that the sideline measurements done with the Patriots' gauge gave a result consistent with the logo gauge. So not so sensible.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,857
The Colts' staff asked the Stadium crew for an air gage after they got possession of the Jackson interception ball. The stadium workers went and got them the air gage used by the Patriots' equipment people. The Colts made a claim about the readings produced in their multiple sideline tests, their claims about the results were consistent with the halftime readings given by the logo gage, but those readings were well within the predicted pressure range for the conditions. Which was a non-starter given that there was a story bout an NFL official stealing from charity to bury and the revenge fantasies of a lot of former Jets employees to humor.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,832
Michigan
Their argument is simplistic.
  • If both the Patriots and the Colts used their own gauges to pre-set footballs to 12.5 & 13.0, and since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Non-Logo gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably higher than allowed.
I never understood that. Why not:

...since the Logo Gauge reads higher than the Non-Logo Gauge...He must have used the Logo Gauge because to use the other one would have resulted in pre-game checks being noticeably lower than allowed.

Am I missing something. Do I care?
Yes, you are missing something. That's the point of the 243 convoluted pages in the Wells Report. Your head starts to hurt well before you can actually make sense of the jumble of nonsense they've put together.