Let Common Sense Prevail | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Let Common Sense Prevail

Status
Not open for further replies.
You could not be more right! Let's throw out the legal system and reject science and instead just decide "the truth" base on our own prejudices. I mean what could possibly go wrong with that?
inquisition.jpg

Um, first, this isn't a legal case, so not sure how our legal system would even be relevant. Second, I'm not rejecting science, I'm embracing it. The science behind the ball deflating due to natural phenomenon has been panned by actual scientists.

So other than this not being a legal case and the science supporting my theory, you have a good point.
 
Um, first, this isn't a legal case, so not sure how our legal system would even be relevant. Second, I'm not rejecting science, I'm embracing it. The science behind the ball deflating due to natural phenomenon has been panned by actual scientists.

So other than this not being a legal case and the science supporting my theory, you have a good point.
You mean the part where gently I mocked you basically pulling your opinion out of your butt? Yeah, I thought so too.
 
Just objecting to the idiot who blamed the referees. Either the Patriots were guilty or no one was guilty. The refs were blameless.
That was my point, and if it wasn't obvious to you from the context you really shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot.
 
That was my point, and if it wasn't obvious to you from the context you really shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot.

Yes, I agreed with you, it was the other guy who was the idiot.
 
From what I've gathered on this, which isn't much, both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning after the 2006 season, were vocal and instrumental in creating rules changes regarding handling of game balls, such that the way that footballs are handled now exists. My initial thought, and I wrote it somewhere, was the rule as it exists today - was some archaic rule that dates back to when football teams actually had tight budgets and the numbers of balls provided by each team was something that was actually considered - much like tight budget youth sports. that was incorrect - the rule exists today, because of lobbying led primarily by Tom Brady and Peyton Manning after the 2006 season. NFL QB's do indeed like to have control over the condition of the balls they handle, and for the past 7 years, they've had more control and influence to do that, than ever.

My other position on this, I still hold firmly that I wrote about before. The Patriots, comparably across the NFL, have enjoyed very low rates of fumbling since 2006. There is no doubt that ball that is inflated at 10.5 lbs pressure or less, is easier to squeeze and hold onto, than a ball that is regulation pressure. What seems to have begun by the whims of the QB in handling the ball, seems to have had greater effect, and whether or not the effect on fumbling became a purpose for the intention of deflating game balls or not?

Debateable, it could have been entirely unintended and unknown consequence - of cheating the rules by the QB for his own purposes. But I find it very hard to believe that nobody internally for the Patriots put the two things together

- a deflated ball and decreased fumbling.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflat...-why-patriots-don-t-fumble-003107565-nfl.html
 
I heard the best explanation of the pros/cons of underinflating the ball this morning on Steve Czaban on Yahoo sports radio. They had one of the guys from sports science on who did all the computations.

Bottom line? Deflating a ball down to 10.5 psi reduces weight by about the weight of a single dollar bill. The decrease in weight will result in a lighter ball arriving about 1/1000th of a second later due to the lighter mass of the ball. 1/1000th of a second translates in to about 1" of differential distant travelled.

The sports science guy made the point that the balls being moist from the weather (just damp, not soaking wet) has about 1/2 ounce difference in weight and that the weight differential from the weather was about 50 times greater than any differential in pressure.

Final analysis from the sports science guy is the receiver's ability to "softly" catch the ball with his hands has a higher impact than anything regarding inflation #'s.

When pressed for an explanation as to how all the Pats' balls were underflated and Colts' were normal he went in to full scientific theory. Most likely explanation is that the refs don't put a calibrated needle in to each ball meaning there isn't any proof of having a known valid starting pressure.
 
.-.
Most likely explanation is that the refs don't put a calibrated needle in to each ball meaning there isn't any proof of having a known valid starting pressure.

That can't be right. Those of us who think the NFL acted too hasty with regard to the officials and believe it is not unreasonable that there is even the remotest of possibilities that they might have some culpability are idiots. :rolleyes:
 
I heard the best explanation of the pros/cons of underinflating the ball this morning on Steve Czaban on Yahoo sports radio. They had one of the guys from sports science on who did all the computations.

Bottom line? Deflating a ball down to 10.5 psi reduces weight by about the weight of a single dollar bill. The decrease in weight will result in a lighter ball arriving about 1/1000th of a second later due to the lighter mass of the ball. 1/1000th of a second translates in to about 1" of differential distant travelled.

The sports science guy made the point that the balls being moist from the weather (just damp, not soaking wet) has about 1/2 ounce difference in weight and that the weight differential from the weather was about 50 times greater than any differential in pressure.

Final analysis from the sports science guy is the receiver's ability to "softly" catch the ball with his hands has a higher impact than anything regarding inflation #'s.

When pressed for an explanation as to how all the Pats' balls were underflated and Colts' were normal he went in to full scientific theory. Most likely explanation is that the refs don't put a calibrated needle in to each ball meaning there isn't any proof of having a known valid starting pressure.

They spent a lot of time and energy missing the point.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflat...-why-patriots-don-t-fumble-003107565-nfl.html
 
I would say that the Patriots not fumbling is similar to why Volvo's are safer than Camaro's and why Volvo drivers get in fewer accidents than Camaro drivers.
Properly inflated tires?

Pats fans can ignore the statistical evidence in that link, the video footage (can't help but laugh again at the post about "chain of custody"), and the fact their footballs were deflated, but like Ray Rice and his wife, we didn't need to see the video inside that elevator to know what happened.
 
Properly inflated tires?

Pats fans can ignore the statistical evidence in that link, the video footage (can't help but laugh again at the post about "chain of custody"), and the fact their footballs were deflated, but like Ray Rice and his wife, we didn't need to see the video inside that elevator to know what happened.

No, not properly inflated tires. People who buy Volvos tend to prioritize a car's safety rating and drive more defensively than most other drivers. So, when you combine a car's safety ratings that are attractive to drivers who drive defensively they get in fewer crashes.

Teams value certain player attributes. Each team has to prioritize them. Patriots place a high value on holding on to the ball. It's not different than screening for players who don't commit penalties or players who don't miss games due to injuries.

Cross comparing sports it would be comparable to baseball teams who value players who take a lot of pitches, basketball teams who value low turnover or high FT shooters, etc.

It's impossible to be an honest person and look at the evidence and find anything conclusive about ball pressure and turnover rates. Are the Packers the highest fumbling team since Rodgers admits to overinflating the ball?
 
.-.

I do love when people cherry pick quotes...

"Matthews admits he’s a Patriots fan, though he insisted, “This has nothing to do with Patriots.”
His own portrayal of the statistics, however, doesn’t differ all that largely from Sharp’s. Matthews gives the Patriots’ fumbles-per-100-carries from 2007 through 2014 as 0.63, and the next best team is St. Louis (a dome team) with 0.71. The league average is 1.0. That still sets the Pats apart, if not as starkly. It still sets 2006 as a demarcation point."
 
No, not properly inflated tires. People who buy Volvos tend to prioritize a car's safety rating and drive more defensively than most other drivers. So, when you combine a car's safety ratings that are attractive to drivers who drive defensively they get in fewer crashes.

Teams value certain player attributes. Each team has to prioritize them. Patriots place a high value on holding on to the ball. It's not different than screening for players who don't commit penalties or players who don't miss games due to injuries.

Cross comparing sports it would be comparable to baseball teams who value players who take a lot of pitches, basketball teams who value low turnover or high FT shooters, etc.

It's impossible to be an honest person and look at the evidence and find anything conclusive about ball pressure and turnover rates. Are the Packers the highest fumbling team since Rodgers admits to overinflating the ball?

Except everyone plays with the same football. Well, they're supposed to.

Outside of the kicking game, there is no volvo football and camaro football. And none of that addresses the sudden change in fumble statistics that coincides with the teams being given control of their own footballs.
 
Except everyone plays with the same football. Well, they're supposed to.

Outside of the kicking game, there is no volvo football and camaro football. And none of that addresses the sudden change in fumble statistics that coincides with the teams being given control of their own footballs.


Read again from the links StoweD210 gave you. There isn't any statistical anomaly of the Pats fumbling. And yes, teams do have the capability of screening players for ball security and emphasize ball security. Just like some teams emphasize penalties.

So riddle me this. Why when Pete Carroll was head coach at USC and they decided to mess with the football pressure did they increase it or decrease it?
 
Read again from the links StoweD210 gave you. There isn't any statistical anomaly of the Pats fumbling. And yes, teams do have the capability of screening players for ball security and emphasize ball security. Just like some teams emphasize penalties.

So riddle me this. Why when Pete Carroll was head coach at USC and they decided to mess with the football pressure did they increase it or decrease it?

Yes, there is, Pats fans just refuse to see it.

Was it legal for Pere Carroll to tamper with the ball pressure and was he trying to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking the rules?

If yes, he was cheating. Just like the Pats. When given motive you guys deny it. When given video evidence of opportunity you shrug it off, when given the history of the organization's willingness to break the rules, you deflect and ask why other teams don't share your same poor reputation. It's really pathetic. The fact you spend all this time arguing whether or not others did it, and what effect it could or couldn't have ignores the bottom line: it's against the rules.
 
Yes, there is, Pats fans just refuse to see it.

Was it legal for Pere Carroll to tamper with the ball pressure and was he trying to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking the rules?

If yes, he was cheating. Just like the Pats. When given motive you guys deny it. When given video evidence of opportunity you shrug it off, when given the history of the organization's willingness to break the rules, you deflect and ask why other teams don't share your same poor reputation. It's really pathetic. The fact you spend all this time arguing whether or not others did it, and what effect it could or couldn't have ignores the bottom line: it's against the rules.

If a rule is not enforced, is it really a rule?

If a lineman blatantly holds or if a QB escapes from In The Grasp after his forward motion is stopped, but the ref doesn't blow the whistle, is he suppose to just concede the down?

Brady may absolutely have submitted under inflated balls for approval (just as Aaron Rodgers admits he hopes to get a number of over inflated balls through the process.), but it's the referee's responsibility to be 100% sure the balls are within regulation. If they cannot claim that (and I don't believe they can), the Patriots cannot be found guilty.

I will repeat for the record, I am a Redskins fan and as such I have a moral obligation to root against the Giants. That only leaves the Patriots in the Northeast, especially with media coverage covering this ridiculous "scandal."
 
Last edited:
.-.
Yes, there is, Pats fans just refuse to see it.

Was it legal for Pere Carroll to tamper with the ball pressure and was he trying to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking the rules?

If yes, he was cheating. Just like the Pats. When given motive you guys deny it. When given video evidence of opportunity you shrug it off, when given the history of the organization's willingness to break the rules, you deflect and ask why other teams don't share your same poor reputation. It's really pathetic. The fact you spend all this time arguing whether or not others did it, and what effect it could or couldn't have ignores the bottom line: it's against the rules.

Marroonnnnnnn
 
I would say that the Patriots not fumbling is similar to why Volvo's are safer than Camaro's and why Volvo drivers get in fewer accidents than Camaro drivers.


Damn my timing is good. Newly released stats. Volvo one of the nine safest cars to drive in the world and the Camaro is one of the cars most likely to involve driver death.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/30/iihs-9-car-models-safest/22571299/

The nine models are the Audi A4 four-wheel-drive luxury car; Honda Odyssey minivan; Kia Sorento SUV; Lexus RX 350 four-wheel-drive luxury SUV; Mercedes-Benz GL-Class four-wheel drive luxury SUV; Subaru Legacy four-wheel-drive midsize car; Toyota Highlander hybrid four-wheel-drive SUV; Toyota Sequoia four-wheel-drive SUV; and Volvo XC90 four-wheel-drive luxury SUV.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/29/iihs-driver-death-cars-top-10/22536459/

Here's the list of models with the highest death rates. Numbers represent driver deaths per 1 million over the years studied, from 2009 to 2012:

1. Kia Rio four-door, 149

2. Nissan Versa, 130

3. Hyundai Accent four-door, 120

4. Chevrolet Aveo, 99

5. Hyundai Accent two-door, 86

6. Chevrolet Camaro, 80

7. Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew, 79

8. Honda Civic two-door, 76

9. Nissan Versa hatchback, 71

10. Ford Focus, 70
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,366
Messages
4,568,196
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom