"Tom Brady prefer his balls to feel a certain way" - balls underinflated

[cabri]

Because, we are talking about competition here. That is like saying "well, if the minimum weight in F1 is 1,150 lbs, why not just get a car with 1,155 instead of shooting for 1,150 exactly! Because, that extra weight might end up being the different in fractions of a second, which might be the difference in winning.

If the NFL really cared about this, they wouldn't let teams handle or prep their own balls. Simple as that. They only care about this because it became news and everyone hates the Patriots. If the Jags happen to have 11.30 PSI in their footballs instead of 11.32, not a single fuck would be given.

Example; the balls that the Colts were using also came in under; what was said about them

 

[slayer202]

you can't say he lied if you can't prove he knew

 

[Phoenix86]

Because, we are talking about competition here. That is like saying "well, if the minimum weight in F1 is 1,150 lbs, why not just get a car with 1,155 instead of shooting for 1,150 exactly! Because, that extra weight might end up being the different in fractions of a second, which might be the difference in winning.

I'm pretty sure the weight of metal/carbon fiber/plastic items don't fluctuate like the psi of a ball. Like, not even close.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

He lied about it. Again that is the integrity piece. You guys are not big picture thinkers at all.. get off the air pressure as being the only thing.

yeah guys. open your minds from prosecuting someone because of a biased clusterfuck enforcement of shambolic rules, to persecuting someone because he succeeds at the expense of those wearing your laundry of choice. we have to make up any and all kinds of shit to throw, for the integrity of the game.

 

[TheSlamma]

yeah guys. open your minds from prosecuting someone because of a biased clusterfuck enforcement of shambolic rules, to persecuting someone because he succeeds at the expense of those wearing your laundry of choice. we have to make up any and all kinds of shit to throw, for the integrity of the game.

Wow a Masshole with an opinion.

 

[smackababy]

I'm pretty sure the weight of metal/carbon fiber/plastic items don't fluctuate like the psi of a ball. Like, not even close.

The PSI fluctuation is natural and isn't going to effect anything irregularly, therefore should be discounted. If the spec for footballs before the game is 12.5 PSI to 13.5 PSI, and is measured at such, without tampering it doesn't matter if they fluctuate at all. The point is, 12.5 at measure time is acceptable. Saying someone should account for random measuring at some point during the game and inflating to 10% of the minimum should be standard practice is stupid. The PSI is not something that must be kept constant (as the conditions of the game cause it to fluctuate).

Let's not forget that the 11.30 and 11.32 theory might fall within the realm of error in the measuring equipment. We know they aren't 100% accurate, as they got 2 different measurements. So, at what point is it clear the balls were altered after the referee measure? I'm not buying it.

If they want to suspend Brady for not cooperating with the investigation, that is an entirely different thing. I am not even entirely okay with that either. Requiring, at threat of suspension / termination access into private cell phones seems a bit illegal by an employer. If the Patriots organization were less than cooperative (as far as making employees available and such), I am okay with them being fined.

But, doing so for cheating, when no proof has been offered, is complete BS.

 

[rudeguy]

yeah guys. open your minds from prosecuting someone because of a biased clusterfuck enforcement of shambolic rules, to persecuting someone because he succeeds at the expense of those wearing your laundry of choice. we have to make up any and all kinds of shit to throw, for the integrity of the game.

I must have missed it: Who was prosecuted?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Wow a Masshole with an opinion.

not just any masshole, but a masshole that's right.

 

[slayer202]

have we discussed whether or not the two locker room guys were every questioned by Wells or anyone else? it seems like the NFL is throwing a tantrum because brady wouldn't "cooperate" but were these other guys asked any questions? have they admitted to any wrongdoing? have they been asked what brady knew or didn't know? seems like that would be part of a normal investigation. does the report talk about this?

 

[positivedoppler]

I thought this thread was about grooming/shaving

 

[cabri]

have we discussed whether or not the two locker room guys were every questioned by Wells or anyone else? it seems like the NFL is throwing a tantrum because brady wouldn't "cooperate" but were these other guys asked any questions? have they admitted to any wrongdoing? have they been asked what brady knew or didn't know? seems like that would be part of a normal investigation. does the report talk about this?

McNally was talked to 4 different times.

Then when they wanted a 5th time; the Patriots said NO

And Wells wants to also hold that against them for NOT COOPERATING

 

[slayer202]

McNally was talked to 4 different times.

Then when they wanted a 5th time; the Patriots said NO

And Wells wants to also hold that against them for NOT COOPERATING

lol is that for real? I just did a quick google after I posted and I quickly saw something about them asking for a second interview. how did they not ask the obvious questions in the first interview? idiots

 

[emperus]

That was a really simple sentence and you didn't seem to comprehend any of it. I'll repeat it, see if you can figure out the answer to your own question.

I'll highlight the important part.

Because it's the same: organization, front office, head coach, and QB.

Given that statement, what do you think is required to change?

It was also a really simple thought. Since your basic argument is that because a team has been successful for as long as the Partiots have, any time there is an issue with anybody in the organization then the penalties should be doubled because they are repeat offenders? What that same standard used for the Seahawks in terms of all the recent suspensions they have bad because of PEDs? Or any other franchise who continuously has players arrested for off field infraction? Or a franchise like the Lions who has players fined for on field safety issues. I'll answer that for you. No, of course not.

 

[smackababy]

lol is that for real? I just did a quick google after I posted and I quickly saw something about them asking for a second interview. how did they not ask the obvious questions in the first interview? sounds like they were trying to get cute by trying to lock them into a story and then try to trip them up later. idiots

"We asked you the story 4 times, and on the 5th you changed some very small details or omitted something unimportnat! Ha! Got you!"

It was also a really simple thought. Since your basic argument is that because a team has been successful for as long as the Partiots have, any time there is an issue with anybody in the organization then the penalties should be doubled because they are repeat offenders? What that same standard used for the Seahawks in terms of all the recent suspensions they have bad because of PEDs? Or any other franchise who continuously has players arrested for off field infraction? Or a franchise like the Lions who has players fined for on field safety issues. I'll answer that for you. No, of course not.

That is the worst example you could possible choose. Had you actually thought about this, you would have used something like the Saints being double punished for something unrelated to a bounty or player safety simply because the organization had a bounty scandal a few years ago.

 

[cabri]

There was also a story going around that the refs had inflated the balls to 16psi.
McNally or the other guy then deflated them to "normal".
That could easily give reason to the story/name of the "Deflator"

 

[smackababy]

There was also a story going around that the refs had inflated the balls to 16psi.
McNally or the other guy then deflated them to "normal".
That could easily give reason to the story/name of the "Deflator"

I know there were text messages released that said the balls were at 16 PSI, it pissed off Tom Brady, and then they joked about making the balls balloons next time. Basically, them fucking with Tom Brady. Nothing concerning deflating to under the minimum PSI.

 

[Phoenix86]

He lied about it. Again that is the integrity piece. You guys are not big picture thinkers at all.. get off the air pressure as being the only thing.

Right. There's multiple issues at hand.

1. Air pressure.
2. Not cooperating.
3. Lying.

Compounding all that is the previous cheating.

Those last two are the big ones. Goodell has a major ego complex and here's how he took those last two issues: You can't make me and I know you can't so I'm also going to mislead you. *drops mic*

Brady basically dared him.

 

[emperus]

.

If you want to claim .9999 of acceptable, fine, I'll say they should have accounted for a +/- difference. If they did that, and the balls came in low, they would still have enough to pass the minimum.

You have clearly not read the report or are generally not really not aware that getting the balls within range was not an exacting science for the refs, well up until deflate gate.

Some players liked balls over inflated and would over inflate them on purpose (i.e Rodgers). In fact he even said that referees would put more air in his balls knowing he liked them over inflated.

In the Wells report there is also an episode where Brady is upset because he believed the balls were over inflated. One of his equipment guys measured them after the game and found some to be at 16PSI. Way over the legal range.

If they cared so much about the legal range, maybe you can explain why any ball would be at 16 PSI.

 

[Phoenix86]

It was also a really simple thought. Since your basic argument is that because a team has been successful for as long as the Partiots have, any time there is an issue with anybody in the organization then the penalties should be doubled because they are repeat offenders? What that same standard used for the Seahawks in terms of all the recent suspensions they have bad because of PEDs? Or any other franchise who continuously has players arrested for off field infraction? Or a franchise like the Lions who has players fined for on field safety issues. I'll answer that for you. No, of course not.

Did you train to be a lawyer? This isn't a court, if you have an opinion it's OK to state it w/o asking a dozen qualifying questions first. At any rate, you'd be a piss poor one.

Since your basic argument is that because a team has been successful for as long as the Partiots have any time there is an issue with anybody in the organization then the penalties should be doubled because they are repeat offenders?

Uhh, no chief, that isn't my basic argument, at all. Nowhere did I state their success (or lack) mattered. My basic argument there was it's OK to consider a teams history of breaking the rules when you are giving out punishment for breaking a rule. You asked why it was fair to consider an event that far back and I replied it's OK because it's the same fucking people. Not one, not two, almost all of them. Owner, HC, QB, all the decision makers.

The punishment (so far) only affects one person who was on the team for both issues.

You diatribe into some position on the Seahawks/Lions, like it's relevant. A good lawyer would have known my position on that before you threw it in my face.

I'm always shocked to find people assume someone is against the one side of an issue just because they support the opposite. You know the term mutually exclusive? It's extremely easy to say all cases should have a just and fair standard applied and that just because it wasn't applied in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied today.

Racial equality wasn't supported in the past, guess we should stop supporting it today. Does that sound stupid to you too? It should. It's exactly what the second half of your argument states.

 

[emperus]

"We asked you the story 4 times, and on the 5th you changed some very small details or omitted something unimportnat! Ha! Got you!"


That is the worst example you could possible choose. Had you actually thought about this, you would have used something like the Saints being double punished for something unrelated to a bounty or player safety simply because the organization had a bounty scandal a few years ago.

No, my point stands. The Patriots are being overly punished by being repeat offenders for an event that happened 8 years after the first with an event that had 0 similarities to the first and didn't even include the same people. Whereas we have this.

Carroll's fine was "at least" $100,000 and the Seahawks team was penalized "in excess of $200,000." The penalties are reportedly the result of too much contact between players during a June 16 OTA practice, according to ESPN's sources.

Per the CBA rules, Seahawks players are not permitted to be at the facility on the days of the lost practices, but will be paid for the sessions. The club cannot reschedule the cancelled days either.

This is not the first time that the Seahawks have been fined for violating practice rules during the offseason. Seattle was fined an undisclosed amount in 2012 for a similar violation and lost two OTA practices, and the team was also docked a practice last year for excessive physicality. The 2012 violations were also under the supervision of Carroll and the coach admitted at that time that it was a "learning process" for himself and the coaching staff.

 

[Imported]

McNally was talked to 4 different times.

Then when they wanted a 5th time; the Patriots said NO

And Wells wants to also hold that against them for NOT COOPERATING

Wells said he got one interview and the Patriots denied the second..

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm61md

Second: Wells called reports that he interviewed Jim McNally four times but was rebuffed for a fifth interview false. Wells said he only tried to speak to McNally twice but was rejected by the Patriots the second time. Wells said he was stunned by McNally calling himself "The Deflator" and wanted to speak to him.

“The Patriots provided me, in my opinion, with substantial cooperation except in one critical and crucial area: I wanted to do a second interview with Jim McNally," Wells said. "Jim McNally was the second Patriots person I interviewed. I wanted, after I interviewed others including Tom Brady, to do a second interview of McNally, to put other questions to him.

"I asked for a second interview, I said I would go to New Hampshire, I would interview him in the morning, afternoon night, I would do it whenever he was free. And they said not only could I not interview him, they wouldn’t even tell him of my request for an interview."

Also, good info on what he wanted from Brady's phone there.. simple print outs would be harmless from a privacy perspective IMO. The guy did get paid millions for this report though..

 

[Phoenix86]

None of the same people and 0 similarities. Good lord, just stop. You're going full retard.

 

[emperus]

Did you train to be a lawyer? This isn't a court, if you have an opinion it's OK to state it w/o asking a dozen qualifying questions first. At any rate, you'd be a piss poor one.

Uhh, no chief, that isn't my basic argument, at all. Nowhere did I state their success (or lack) mattered. My basic argument there was it's OK to consider a teams history of breaking the rules when you are giving out punishment for breaking a rule. You asked why it was fair to consider an event that far back and I replied it's OK because it's the same fucking people. Not one, not two, almost all of them. Owner, HC, QB, all the decision makers.

The punishment (so far) only affects one person who was on the team for both issues.

You diatribe into some position on the Seahawks/Lions, like it's relevant. A good lawyer would have known my position on that before you threw it in my face.

I'm always shocked to find people assume someone is against the one side of an issue just because they support the opposite. You know the term mutually exclusive? It's extremely easy to say all cases should have a just and fair standard applied and that just because it wasn't applied in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied today.

I'm asking those questions because it's obvious your bias is restraining you from using your god giving(hopefully) ability to think. I thought by asking you those questions, it would help kick start your brain.

You see there sparky, you're saying basically (unbeknownst to you) that inherently their success is at play. Because they have been successful this long, they have the same coach, owner and quarterback. Right? Do you think that could be said if they weren't that successful? What other unsuccessful team has had the same? In fact what other unsuccessful team has had 2 out of 3 for as long as the pats have?

You then go on to state

The punishment (so far) only affects one person who was on the team for both issues.

Seeing you don't seem to know much about this. You probably don't know that the team is also losing a 1st and 4th round pick. Also maybe you can explain to me why you think your general position is fair; that it is okay to label a team a repeat offender for incidents that aren't close to being the same and that are committed by different people in the organization. In the first incident, Belichick was fined and blamed, and in this incident Brady was fined and blamed. So, again, in what time frame does the team stop being overly punished for past issues. When Kraft is gone? Belichick? Brady? 2 of 3 or all 3? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

Racial equality wasn't supported in the past, guess we should stop supporting it today. Does that sound stupid to you too? It should. It's exactly what the second half of your argument states.

Did you just want a reason to throw race in? Because, otherwise your point just sounds stupid. We are talking about how arbitrary and heavy handed the punishment was. And in order to be able to decide both, it's necessary to understand how other issues were treated and what punishments were given.

 

[smackababy]

Wells said he got one interview and the Patriots denied the second..

And, if that is the case, I am okay with the Patriots being fined.

Also, good info on what he wanted from Brady's phone there.. simple print outs would be harmless from a privacy perspective IMO. The guy did get paid millions for this report though..

And? If someone asked me for print outs of my text messages, I'd refuse. I don't care who it is. If you don't have a warrant (and then you're going to have to unlock my phone yourself), you aren't getting anything. Suspending Brady because he won't turn over personal text messages without a warrant is borderline illegal. Imagine if your boss said that.

 

[Imported]

And? If someone asked me for print outs of my text messages, I'd refuse. I don't care who it is. If you don't have a warrant (and then you're going to have to unlock my phone yourself), you aren't getting anything. Suspending Brady because he won't turn over personal text messages without a warrant is borderline illegal. Imagine if your boss said that.

I agree with that. But Brady didn't help himself any by not cooperating. Its no wonder the NFL did what they did. Though it would have been hilarious if Brady provided them, but redacted everything..