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

[JEDI]

He must have meant the championship game.

whoops.. meant that.
the game where the actual cheating happened.

not superbowl

 

[emperus]

Yall are delusional for thinking it's a bad decision and will get overturned.

You can continue to ignore the several people telling you quite correctly that this punishment is more about integrity of the game by not cooperating with the league investigation than actual participation in the initial act, but that is what happened and little chance of that getting cut down.

But isn't that in itself an arbitrary punishment? Doesn't every rule infraction effect the "integrity of the game"? If so, wouldn't that mean the NFL can arbitrarily change any punishment based on "integrity of the game"?

 

[lupi]

Best part from Kraft

“Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence,” the statement reads.



You mean circumstantial like that used to send your tight end to prison?

 

[emperus]

Interesting nugget from the wells report.

13. In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether
there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain. However, based on all of the information provided to us, particularly regarding the timing and sequencing of the measurements conducted by the game officials at halftime, and on our testing and analyses, we conclude that within the range of game characteristics most likely to have occurred on Game Day, we have identified no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the additional loss in air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls as compared to the loss in air pressure exhibited by the Colts game balls measured during halftime of the AFC
Championship Game.

And then how do they account for the fact that measurements were consistently higher by one official compared to the other when testing the patriots balls and then lower when testing the Colts balls?

Before an analysis of the data is discussed, a few observations and nomenclature definitions are
needed. First, note that for a given set of measurements, one gauge consistently reads higher than the other (with the exception of the third Colts ball, which will be discussed below), with the
magnitude of the difference being relatively constant. in the Patriots measurements, the gauge used by Mr. Prioleau reads higher, whereas in the Colts measurements, the gauge used by Mr. Blakeman reads higher. Given what Exponent has learned in the subsequent analysis of the two gauges (as will be discussed in the next section), it appears most likely that the two officials switched gauges in
between measuring each team’s footballs.
According to information provided by Paul, Weiss, it is most likely that both of the gauges
belonged to Walt Anderson, the referee for the AFC Championship Game. For the remainder of this report, the gauge that reads consistently higher, as mentioned above, will be referred to as the “Logo Gauge” (in reference to the Wilson “W” logo present on the back of the gauge), whereas the gauge that reads consistently lower will be referred to as the “Non-Logo Gauge” (which has no equivalent “W” marking on the gauge back). The differences in these gauges will take on
increased significance later in this report.

Yeah, I call bullshit. I can't even imagine putting anything like that in any LAB I did when I was in College.

 

[KeithTalent]

Best part from Kraft

“Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence,” the statement reads.



You mean circumstantial like that used to send your tight end to prison?

Yeah, those things are entirely comparable. You have to be fucking kidding me.

KT

 

[cabri]

Best part from Kraft

“Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence,” the statement reads.



You mean circumstantial like that used to send your tight end to prison?

Hernandez was convicted in a court of law;

The NFL has not tried to provide evidence to justify the conclusion.
Such is the reason why Brady/Pats will appeal to a NEUTRAL third party.
All the "evidence" called out in the report that the NFL is using against Brady will be challenged (may aspects have already been published)

The report that the NFL is basing this on; itself; does not come out with any direct proof.

They could not prove a positive; so they went with the negative; absence of proof of innocence allowed an association of guilt.

 

[lupi]

But isn't that in itself an arbitrary punishment? Doesn't every rule infraction effect the "integrity of the game"? If so, wouldn't that mean the NFL can arbitrarily change any punishment based on "integrity of the game"?

Yes, when the NFL fines for wrong colored shoes or wearing a competitors product they state integrity of the game in the letter.


Or you could use common sense and realize the answer yourself.

 

[Pacfanweb]

They all cheat. Pats are nowhere near the worst, either. Just the most recent.

http://yourteamcheats.com/

 

[lupi]

Hernandez was convicted in a court of law;

The NFL has not tried to provide evidence to justify the conclusion.
Such is the reason why Brady/Pats will appeal to a NEUTRAL third party.
All the "evidence" called out in the report that the NFL is using against Brady will be challenged (may aspects have already been published)

The report that the NFL is basing this on; itself; does not come out with any direct proof.

They could not prove a positive; so they went with the negative; absence of proof of innocence allowed an association of guilt.

And those nfl analyst who have a legal background stated that based on the report Brady would have been convicted in a civil court of law, which would be something other than "no proof" that you seem to believe.

 

[slayer202]

look guys, lupi wants brady suspended. that's all the evidence the nfl needs. integrity!

 

[lupi]

Yeah, those things are entirely comparable. You have to be fucking kidding me.

KT

You're right, Hernandez was not yet a repeat offender so it should have been more difficult to pen him on circumstantial.

 

[smackababy]

Here is an interesting idea: had this been the Jaguars, would people be trying to get Bortles suspended?

 

[Pacfanweb]

And those nfl analyst who have a legal background stated that based on the report Brady would have been convicted in a civil court of law, which would be something other than "no proof" that you seem to believe.

Same experts also thought OJ Simpson would be convicted, and they had FAR more direct evidence in that case. A court case is never a sure thing.

 

[smackababy]

Same experts also thought OJ Simpson would be convicted, and they had FAR more direct evidence in that case. A court case is never a sure thing.

Anyone who guarantees a conviction is a fucking moron. Nobody knows how a group of pretty much random assholes will see and what they will take into account as enough proof.

With that said, is there actually an evidence the Patriots (and Tom Brady) tampered with anything? The only thing I've seen, and I haven't been following very hard, was some texts that said "Ha! Tom doesn't like over inflated balls? Fuck him! I'ma fuck with him now." Hardly, the smoking gun.

 

[emperus]

Yes, when the NFL fines for wrong colored shoes or wearing a competitors product they state integrity of the game in the letter.


Or you could use common sense and realize the answer yourself.

Or you can try making a better point. In the rules an infraction for messing with balls was a 25,000 fine. So that is how serious the NFL though that was. The fine should be representative of that.

Compare this fine for the recent fine for pumping in crowd noise when the opposing team is on Offense or the recent Browns fine for sending texts to the sidelines.

Which one of these has a greater impact on the integrity of the game? And which had the greater fine?

 

[emperus]

With that said, is there actually an evidence the Patriots (and Tom Brady) tampered with anything? The only thing I've seen, and I haven't been following very hard, was some texts that said "Ha! Tom doesn't like over inflated balls? Fuck him! I'ma fuck with him now." Hardly, the smoking gun.

None.

 

[dainthomas]

So Pats fans have zero problem with Lynch receiving some of the highest fines of the year for not being a chatty Cathy or wearing the wrong hat at a news conference, but somehow THIS is an outrage? Lol, ok guys.

 

[Capt Caveman]

And those nfl analyst who have a legal background stated that based on the report Brady would have been convicted in a civil court of law, which would be something other than "no proof" that you seem to believe.

:biggrin:

 

[The Boston Dangler]

You mean circumstantial like that used to send your tight end to prison?

there you go. the very dumbest thing you'll read all week.

 

[Phoenix86]

You guys are mixing up levels of burden of proof. This is the level the NFL operates on for penalties. It's the same standard that would be used against them if it goes to court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Preponderance of the evidence
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases, and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act.

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[7] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.

This is also the standard of proof used when determining eligibility of unemployment benefits for a former employee accused of losing their job through alleged misconduct. In most US states, the employer must prove this case based on preponderance of the evidence.

 

[cabri]

there you go. the very dumbest thing you'll read all week.

The week is less than half over; be patient; more will come from him

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Here is an interesting idea: had this been the Jaguars, would people be trying to get Bortles suspended?

Had this been the Jaguars, Bortles would've been suspended and no one would've given a shit except the 3 Jags fans in existence.

 

[lupi]

Or you can try making a better point. In the rules an infraction for messing with balls was a 25,000 fine. So that is how serious the NFL though that was. The fine should be representative of that.

Compare this fine for the recent fine for pumping in crowd noise when the opposing team is on Offense or the recent Browns fine for sending texts to the sidelines.

Which one of these has a greater impact on the integrity of the game? And which had the greater fine?

That you're still posting the same thing after being proven wrong in this very thread is very patriot of you.

 

[emperus]

You guys are mixing up levels of burden of proof. This is the level the NFL operates on for penalties. It's the same standard that would be used against them if it goes to court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Preponderance of the evidence
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases, and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act.

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[7] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.

This is also the standard of proof used when determining eligibility of unemployment benefits for a former employee accused of losing their job through alleged misconduct. In most US states, the employer must prove this case based on preponderance of the evidence.

But what evidence meets that standard?

 

[lupi]

But what evidence meets that standard?

A load of circumstantial evidence. The league based the discipline on many incriminating but not wholly indictable pieces of evidence, among them some text messages that had one of the Patriots employees call himself “the Deflator.” But as I wrote Monday, Yee and his team will clearly bring up the borderline measurement of the Patriots’ footballs at halftime of the AFC Championship Game Jan. 19. Officials used two gauges at halftime. On page 113 of the Wells report, after a description of the scientific Ideal Gas Law, Wells says that the Patriots footballs should have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi. The average of all 22 readings was 11.30 psi … two-one-hundredths lower what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at the Patriots’ level of 12.5 psi. The Brady camp will surely argue that this case never should have been brought forth because of how close the Patriots’ footballs were to the minimum level.
A perceived lack of cooperation from Brady and the Patriots—and being misled by Brady. Because Ted Wells, or the NFL’s designated investigative arm, does not have subpoena power, the league will look down upon a person or organization for not cooperating fully in a probe of that team. Clearly, that’s what Goodell ruled here. When Brady wouldn’t turn over his cell phone for forensic examination, that was viewed as a lack of cooperation. When the Patriots would not make assistant equipment manager John Jastremski available for an additional interview at Wells’ request, that was viewed as a lack of cooperation. Vincent’s letter to the Patriots said Brady balked at surrendering his information “despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information … It remains significant that the quarterback of the team failed to cooperate fully with the investigation.” Vincent also clearly felt that Brady misled the Wells team “by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.”
Past offense. In 2007 the team and Belichick were sanctioned a total of $750,000 and docked a first-round draft choice for illegally videotaping coaching signals on the opposing sidelines. “Under the integrity of the game policy,” wrote Vincent, “this prior violation of competitive rules was properly considered in determining the discipline in this case.”