Set bag on floor, bend over and open it, deflate balls while they are still in the bag for 3 seconds each, grab bag's drawstring and head out the door
Yeah, OK, hadn't considered doing the deflating in the bag. Carry on.Ferm Sheller said:Set bag on floor, bend over and open it, deflate balls while they are still in the bag for 3 seconds each, grab bag's drawstring and head out the door
I agree that would be the violation under the rules. So let's assume there was a violation. McNally sneaks into the bathroom and takes about .5 PSI out of most of the footballs. Why does that action result in this punishment?uncannymanny said:Holy shit. For the billionth time, the egregious actions are the alleged post-inspection tampering with the balls and coverup.
It's the last sentence in the rule you just posted. Is everyone taking crazy pills?!
smokin joe wood said:I think the Wetzel article above sums up my feeling on this situation about as well as any article I've seen.
The NFL either had no idea what it was doing and was just making up facts without checking or, in a more draconian reading of it, it was trying to scare and/or silence the franchise into compliance by trumping up evidence.
86spike said:The report notes that Patriots security footage is overwritten every 10 days so they had no footage from other home games.
It's likely a violation, which is uncannymanny's point. The rule is poorly written. The footballs are under the ref's supervision until turned over to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game. It doesn't say that the footballs aren't to be altered, even if within compliance of the rules otherwise, once turned over to ball attendant. However, it's likely implied.Ferm Sheller said:If McNally secretly deflated the balls and if they were all at least 12.5 psi right after deflation (a big if, I know), I'd contend he did nothing wrong. The balls were legal when they left his hands. It's like a 21 year old using a fake ID that says he's 25 when buying beer. Is there a rule that you can't secretly do something legal to the ball after the refs approve them?
natpastime162 said:
I recall and interview from a few years ago with Goodell in which it was pretty clear he was still bitter about the apology and felt Belichickdidn't grovel at his feet and beg for mercywasn't contrite enough. Does anyone remember that interview?
Ferm Sheller said:Set bag on floor, bend over and open it, deflate balls while they are still in the bag for 3 seconds each, grab bag's drawstring and head out the door
Maybe I deflate one twice, maybe one doesn't get deflated at all. So be it. Brady will just chuck it aside if he doesn't like it.DrewDawg said:
Don't double deflate the same ball!!!
Bongorific said:It's likely a violation, which is uncannymanny's point. The rule is poorly written. The footballs are under the ref's supervision until turned over to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game. It doesn't say that the footballs aren't to be altered, even if within compliance of the rules otherwise, once turned over to ball attendant. However, it's likely implied.
That's not my overall argument on this issue. If McNally did take air out of the footballs in the bathroom after they were already inspected, he violated the rule. The punishment, though, should have been minor as the rules explicitly state and as precedent demonstrated.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-02/roger-goodell-feels-deceived-by-patriots-belichickHarry Hooper said:
Don't recall an interview, but King has written about the Commish still wanting more from BB..
I prefer "dushbag".nighthob said:Yeah, that's the other reason, people always use the puffed up important sounding names like "The Sheriff" and "The Commish" so I riffed off the latter.
I'll quote this previous response because it's an absolute perfect analogy IMO:Bongorific said:I agree that would be the violation under the rules. So let's assume there was a violation. McNally sneaks into the bathroom and takes about .5 PSI out of most of the footballs. Why does that action result in this punishment?
And you're 100% right about this:kartvelo said:With Goodell in charge, it's like living with a parent who's an abusive drunk. You never know what trivial or innocuous event might set them off.
I'm not picking on you in particular. I'll make my position clearer, and as a start I'll say that I think something went on that wasn't by the book. I'll reiterate that that is what *I* think based in the report. As an addendum i don't believe it in any way affected the games, but that's irrelevant anyway.It only does because this is the perfect shitstorm. Sneaking into the bathroom rather than just deflating in the locker room, out of context text messages referring to "deflator" and "going to ESPN," the Patriots being involved.
Well that's kind of a silly exercise, but let's. Can we pretend Aaron Hernandez didn't murder anyone and be indignant about his imprisonment next?Instead, let's assume a different set of facts.
In this hypothetical did GB cause a league/Goodell-embarrassing shitstorm because of Spygate? Did their coach thumb his nose at the media for 10 years? Did their coach fuck with the league office for that same amount of time over the injury report? Did they put their figurative balls on the table by neener-neenering the Ravens the prior week after running fully legal but dubiously competitive plays? Should I continue?A video camera captures the referees inspecting the footballs in the locker room prior to the Green Bay/Dallas playoff game. After the refs step out, the ball attendant quickly takes the pump and adds .5 PSI to each ball because Rodgers likes his footballs on the firm side. The effect on the game is no different than what potentially happened with the Patriots. What do you think the penalty would have been?
I'm guessing somewhere between the $20,000 fine against the Chargers for doctoring balls and the 5th-round draft pick/$350,000 fine against the Falcons for trying to drown out the opposing quarterback's signals.
:facepalm:Ferm Sheller said:If McNally secretly deflated the balls and if they were all at least 12.5 psi right after deflation (a big if, I know), I'd contend he did nothing wrong. The balls were legal when they left his hands. It's like a 21 year old using a fake ID that says he's 25 when buying beer. Is there a rule that you can't secretly do something legal to the ball after the refs approve them?
Nick Kaufman said:Imho the dan wetzel article is the definitive account of what happened and not a single extra word needs to be written about that matter ever.
Just start a thread with it and keep it on top of the subforum for years to come.
It wouldn't matter anyway. Most people made up their minds before the Wells report, this has always been about punishment.E5 Yaz said:
As solid and on point as Wetzel's piece is, it won't gain any traction with those major media outlets that also have gazillion dollar contracts with the NFL. The majority of buffoons out there still live in a world where "If ESPN doesn't say it, it didn't happen"; so, unless it gets some play on the four-letter, or someone such as PK pumps it, it will remain just a piece that ties it together for those who don't buy into the NFL's narrative
Ed Hillel said:It wouldn't matter anyway. Most people made up their minds before the Wells report, this has always been about punishment.
FYI, I'm on your side. I just wanted to make a point that the texts can be interpreted in several different ways, and it doesn't require mental gymnastics. Hence, the absurdity of the Wells Report drawing a clear conclusion from them.kartvelo said:However, given that there's no reason to believe that anything untoward actually happened to the balls in question, there's no need to "frame" the texts in any way whatsoever.
And here's the full exchange:Brady sent Jastremski text messages seemingly designed to calm Jastremski (“You good Jonny boy?”; “You doing good?”). For his part, Jastremski sent Brady text messages confirming that he was okay (“Still nervous; so far so good though”) and cautioning Brady about questioning (“FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He‟s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it‟s unrealistic you did it yourself...”).
Perhaps it just sticks out because there is so little of Brady in the actual report. Perhaps Wells read these texts as Brady trying to convey a sense of calming confidence. Or maybe even he thought Brady was trying to rewrite the official story now that the jig was up.Brady (9:51:54am): You good Jonny boy?
Jastremski (9:53:27am): Still nervous; so far so good though. I‟ll be alright
Brady (9:54:16am): You didn’t do anything wrong bud.
Jastremski (9:55:01am): I know; I’ll be all good.
....
Jastremski (10:54:40am): FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He’s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it’s unrealistic you did it yourself...
Jastremski (10:55:32am): Just a heads up
Brady (10:59:32am): No worries bud. We are all good
He is not a game official. He is a Patriots employee. The rule in question is concerned at this point only with who is authorized to inflate or deflate the balls.That is the game official who certifies the balls for play. At this point the only allowable activity on the part of the Patriots team is that they can choose not to use a ball that they presented to the game official for certification. They can't fix anything.Ferm Sheller said:If McNally secretly deflated the balls and if they were all at least 12.5 psi right after deflation (a big if, I know), I'd contend he did nothing wrong. The balls were legal when they left his hands. It's like a 21 year old using a fake ID that says he's 25 when buying beer. Is there a rule that you can't secretly do something legal to the ball after the refs approve them?
This might be the nexus of Wells request for Brady's communication and a final interview with McNally. The phrase " we are all good " might have been interpreted by the investigators as implying that Brady had also communicated with McNally as well. I am sure the Patriots had another phone number in their files for Mc Nally which Brady could have gotten. Admittedly this would not be proof that McNally deflated the balls but it would establish that Brady had communicated with all parties to this alleged conspiracy.Van Everyman said:So much has been made of the "incriminating texts"—Wells went out of his way to describe Brady's entire post AFC Championship exchange with Jastremski as highly suspicious—that I was struck when I saw an article in The Guardian laying out the full texts.
Here is how the Wells Report describes Brady's interaction with Jastremski:
And here's the full exchange:
Perhaps it just sticks out because there is so little of Brady in the actual report. Perhaps Wells read these texts as Brady trying to convey a sense of calming confidence. Or maybe even he thought Brady was trying to rewrite the official story now that the jig was up.
But even still I was struck that Wells didn't see fit to include Brady's sentiments that nothing inappropriate was done ("You didn’t do anything wrong bud") and that they had nothing to worry about ("No worries bud. We are all good").
Somewhat surprising for a guy so determined to be fair.
I read it as Brady acknowledging he is ok to speak with Schonfield later in the day about it and that JJ is ok to give him a heads up,Doctor G said:This might be the nexus of Wells request for Brady's communication and a final interview with McNally. The phrase " we are all good " might have been interpreted by the investigators as implying that Brady had also communicated with McNally as well. I am sure the Patriots had another phone number in their files for Mc Nally which Brady could have gotten. Admittedly this would not be proof that McNally deflated the balls but it would establish that Brady had communicated with all parties to this alleged conspiracy.
As previously mentioned, keeping track of which balls had already been adjusted would be a nightmare, but I contend that it also wouldn't save any time. Have you ever tried to move balls around in a ball bag? It's not exactly easy. And then sticking a guage into a ball only to find out "oh, shit, I already deflated this one" = time wasted.Ferm Sheller said:Set bag on floor, bend over and open it, deflate balls while they are still in the bag for 3 seconds each, grab bag's drawstring and head out the door
Hoya81 said:
There was a reference to that in the Wells report. Not in the Dolphins/Patriots game in Oct 2004, but the NYJ/Pats.
http://nesn.com/2015/05/wells-report-patriots-warned-in-2004-about-improper-footballs/
This is like 10 pages ago, but I just finally caught up so:Myt1 said:Well, that's obviously a joke. People just don't joke about things that would implicate them.
crystalline said:Brady is the worst target in the NFL for Goodell, by a long shot.
- he is the least budget constrained
- he probably has one of the top 5 highest Q ratings, meaning he can get on any news outlet whenever he wants
- and he knows how the game is played. He comes from a wealthy white collar family, and his Dad knows how battles like this are fought- and if he doesn't, he has contacts he can ask. Brady isn't some guy who grew up poor and isn't used to navigating business waters.
Just a great line.wiffleballhero said:Under the right circumstances, Wells could read a mother's day card as proof of incest.
Well, it was the media/NFL that turned Spygate into a "league embarrassing shitstorm". When caught, Belichick cooperated, turned over the tapes, and never did it again. The whole episode was mostly forgotten. And there was nothing dubious at all about the formations the Pats ran in the Ravens game; the same trick play had been run by other teams in the NFL. It's just extremely rare, and Harbaugh whined to take the heat off the fact that his team twice blew 14 point leads. And none of those things should have figured into the punishment. NONE. Why? Because none are illegal, except for Spygate. And the team was already punished for Spygate, quite severly in fact. If Goodell is using any of those things as justification for this punishment, then he should be fired.uncannymanny said:In this hypothetical did GB cause a league/Goodell-embarrassing shitstorm because of Spygate? Did their coach thumb his nose at the media for 10 years? Did their coach fuck with the league office for that same amount of time over the injury report? Did they put their figurative balls on the table by neener-neenering the Ravens the prior week after running fully legal but dubiously competitive plays? Should I continue?
Look, I LOVE this franchise and was a season ticket holder with my dad until I left the area (starting when they still stunk -- Tony Eason stunk). Other than Spygate I think all of the above are fucking AWESOME. Truly wonderful. But the fact is when you constantly act like a dick to everyone you work with, you put yourself in a tenuous position if you're not completely above board. The chickens came home to roost for the franchise, rightly or wrongly. The punishment was, from the moment it was announced, clearly not solely about this incident, although it was still shocking and it is definitely stupid.
What's really tiring though is the constant justification:
- the mega posts every .6 pages outlining why the science is stupid (it is but it's quite obviously the least important part of why the discipline was handed down)
- painting billionaire Robert Kraft, most intelligent coach of all time and millionaire Bill Belichick and millionaire supermodel husband Tom Brady as "aw shucks" yokels
- finger pointing "they did it too!!!"
- "but it didn't affect the score! 2nd half!!1!"
- McNally is threatening to go to ESPN to tell them Tom Brady is mean to him!
And on and on. It's lame behavior, we would destroy the Jets/Broncos/Ravens/Giants fans for doing this. We all know exactly why the fuck the punishment was what it was. Is it fair? Certainly not and I hope to hell the NFL gets dragged through the gauntlet and embarrassed, especially Goodell.
But I'm watching tons of people on this board who I've respected for like a decade and are way smarter than me twist themselves into pretzels making foolish, roundabout arguments to points that aren't the crux of the matter. It's embarrassing and this place is better than that.
Playing Devil's advocate for a minute (thanks, Marge), Goodell and the NFL aren't a court of law, either. We have people here certainly more qualified than I to discuss this, but I think due process, reasonable doubt, and all the other principles in a democratic republic are more of a vague concept in this scenario. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if a judge, in a hypothetical case, would tell the plaintiffs, "Sorry, but you are a member organization and you're subject to the bylaws (and whims) of the NFL." As for TB and the phone records, I have no doubt that he is under no obligation to share that information absent a subpoena, but I have to guess (no, really, it's a guess) that the NFL doesn't have to sit on their hands if they don't get what they asked for.Van Everyman said:Volin with a pretty tough article on Kraft arguing that the Pats stonewalling of Goodell gave him no choice.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/13/patriots-were-punished-for-cover/4KCNOBJBG32HBS8QtBNOvM/story.html
I'm not sure I totally agree. For one, this isn't a criminal proceeding – McNally doing a phone interview wasn't that unreasonable. And Brady refusing to turn his phone over, as noted, is defensible as well.
Bigger point he's making is that Kraft thought his relationship with Goodell would prevent the League from coming down too hard on them. Given how contentious this has been from the get-go I have a hard time buying that.
One point about Deflategate that has, I think, escaped notice. Ted Wells, the NFL investigator, says, at the very beginning of the Report (in footnote 1),
thatnder the NFL Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
Actually, that’s not correct. It ignores the “of the evidence” part. The preponderance standard involves weighing the evidence, to see which side tips the balance. Many things can be “more probable than not” that do not satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard. An illustration:
Brady Anderson, a slightly built (6’1″, 170 lbs) outfielder for the Baltimore Orioles having a solid but unspectacular career in the big leagues in the 1990s, hit 50 home runs in 1996 (after having hit 16, 12, and 13 in the previous three seasons). It was an Orioles record – and this on a team that had featured sluggers like Boog Powell, Frank and Brooks Robinson, and other big hitters.
It is perfectly rational to say that it is “more probable than not” that Brady Anderson was using performing enhancing drugs in 1996 – even if there is no evidence (let alone a preponderance of it) that he actually did so.
Or this:
Jurors are not permitted to find someone liable under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard based upon information they may bring with them into the courtroom – even if that information is completely accurate. I may believe that 72.6% of all corporate executives trade on inside information; that’s enough, without more, for me to say it is more probable than not that any randomly chosen corporate executive has traded on inside information. It is not enough, without more, to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard.
HowBoutDemSox said:
It is, I think, telling that after footnote 1 (quoted above), Wells never again uses the “preponderance of the evidence” formulation. It is always “more probable than not”:
Its as though Wells couldn’t even bring himself to say it: “The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that …” Because the evidence is so preposterously weak.
[And Memo to NFL: you might want to think about not having your “investigators” decide your cases for you, eh? It smacks a little of Soviet-style justice. Especially when your investigators’ ability to get more multi-million dollar engagements in the future depends on pleasing the client (i.e., you). Not exactly a good design for reaching the right result, I would say.]
And yet people were insisting that Wells would not dream to draft a biased report to support a client, because he was a great attorney.swingin val said:If I was paid 5 million dollars by the NFL, I would most likely find that Brady was more likely than not complicit.
If I was paid 5 million by the NFLPA, I would most likely find the opposite.
I gotta think that where the money is coming from helps frame the investigation and which facts you place more emphasis on. Human nature and all.
Shelter was right, I was wrong, and nobody is batting 1.000 in here.drleather2001 said:And yet people were insisting that Wells would not dream to draft a biased report to support a client, because he was a great attorney.
I cannot have a rational conversation with people who argue otherwise, just as I can't have a rational discussion with people who contend that the 2007 taping was ok because the League prohibition came in the form of a memorandum to 32 teams rather than a formal amendment of League rules (see Kraft thread).Doctor G said:He is not a game official. He is a Patriots employee. The rule in question is concerned at this point only with who is authorized to inflate or deflate the balls.That is the game official who certifies the balls for play. At this point the only allowable activity on the part of the Patriots team is that they can choose not to use a ball that they presented to the game official for certification. They can't fix anything.
tims4wins said:Exactly. Talk about confirmation bias. That report, presented as independent, is a farce.