T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
I doubt they dock 'em picks or suspend Brady. Maybe a fine and double secret probation from Dean Wormer.
Tom Brady---Forever a Fraud?
- Thread starter ~Utah
- Start date
Elbutre88
Pretty much a regular
oh i bet they'll be a fine here, at the least. maybe they suspend him a game--the union fights it and he takes the game suspension against jax instead.
i think all the qb's do this shit, and i don't think it's even that big of a deal, but the nfl is gonna say it has to do with the integrity of the game...they usually freak out when it comes to that kind of behavior.
i think all the qb's do this shit, and i don't think it's even that big of a deal, but the nfl is gonna say it has to do with the integrity of the game...they usually freak out when it comes to that kind of behavior.
L
Lareux
Guest
Science won't lie, you're right. And when Sport Science did their due diligence on this, they found that there is a minuscule advantage gained, if any at all, by using deflated footballs. It makes no difference is basically the conclusion they came to.
takeit
THE Wife
Then why do it?
L
Lareux
Guest
Seems like a personal preference. It also seems like it's very common for many QBs to have the balls inflated to where they feel most comfortable.
JumpOnBoard
CTG Partner
it would be more than enough in a civil court of law
JumpOnBoard
CTG Partner
then why lie about it when asked?
takeit
THE Wife
Understand.
I like to drive fast. Doesn't mean I'm not breaking the law if I speed. Because "5 MPH over the speed limit really doesn't matter" would not get me out of a ticket.
L
Lareux
Guest
Sure. We weren't initially talking about breaking the law though, we were talking about whether or not an advantage was gained.
You aren't getting a ticket for going 5 mph over the speed limit anyway, and your "5 MPH over the speed limit doesn't really matter" actually holds true. Cops give you a 'buffer zone' that it easily 5-10 mph over the speed limit (depending on the speed limit of course, and whether it's a highway or not). Around here, they've even gone as far as writing an article in the paper about radar and how you're fine if you're going less than 10 mph over the speed limit. The article contained quotes from the NY State Police, who confirmed that they aren't pulling people over who are going 5 MPH over the speed limit.
So, not only was your example not a good one (because you won't get a ticket for 5 mph over the speed limit), it wasn't even what we were initially talking about, as we were talking about whether or not an advantage was gained.
Last edited by a moderator:
L
Lareux
Guest
I'm not sure, but I'm also not sure Brady lied about anything (he may have though, just saying I'm not aware of it). I did read today though that Brady was pretty forthcoming in the interview, and gave answers to every question that was asked. Suspiciously, none of that interview was included in the report. Seems odd they wouldn't include that in the report doesn't it?
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
You're probably not getting pulled over for going 65 in a 60 either. Because that would be about as reasonable as giving a shit about the psi of a football.
JumpOnBoard
CTG Partner
Useful read:
Richard Deitsch @richarddeitsch · 15h15 hours ago
.@McCannSportsLaw is always terrific about providing digestible legal analysis. Here's his take on the #WellsReport: http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/05/06/nfl-deflategate-wells-report-legal-analysis …
Richard Deitsch @richarddeitsch · 15h15 hours ago.@McCannSportsLaw is always terrific about providing digestible legal analysis. Here's his take on the #WellsReport: http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/05/06/nfl-deflategate-wells-report-legal-analysis …
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
I think I-480 is 60 MPH, Alex. Turnpike's 70 once you get into the sticks.
Elbutre88
Pretty much a regular
or a grand jury. dude would for sure get indicted.
Elbutre88
Pretty much a regular
except when the pats attorneys told him not to participate in the follow up interview and he didn't give his phone up
takeit
THE Wife
So, not only was your example not a good one (because you won't get a ticket for 5 mph over the speed limit), it wasn't even what we were initially talking about, as we were talking about whether or not an advantage was gained.
I've gotten one speeding ticket in my life and it was for going 5 MPH over. 30 in a 25 - speed trap going around a turn. They had a cop with a radar detector standing there pointing you over and there was a line of cars waiting to have his buddy write you a ticket.
The NFL has rules, not laws, and just because YOU (not you, personally, but the person doing it) think it's not an advantage does not mean it's not breaking the rule/law.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
30 in a 25 is different, lead foot. That's 20% over the limit.
L
Lareux
Guest
Right, like I said it depends on the speed limit and whether or not it was a highway. Your example was 65 in a 60...you aren't getting a ticket for that.
It isn't about whether the person thinks it's an advantage or not....they did a scientific study to see if it was an advantage to have a less deflated football, and determined it was not. There was no opinion in there, it was scientific fact from their experiments. Again, we aren't talking about breaking the rule, we are talking about whether it was an advantage or not.
L
Lareux
Guest
This doesn't explain why the interview he did give wasn't included in the report. Seems like something you would want to include in a few hundred page report.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
This whole thing is absurd. People care more about this than that they had a murderer at tight end.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
What did Big Ben get for raping the co-ed in the bathroom? Couple games? Can't remember.
L
Lareux
Guest
Sport Science is pretty well respected isn't it? Maybe now that it's on ESPN it isn't?
How in the world did he prove Hernandez wasn't guilty? I didn't see anything about that, I'm certainly curious though.
You asked, or mentioned science...I showed you where they did experiments on it (you can watch the whole thing) and determined it wasn't an advantage. I'm confused as to how what I mentioned doesn't fit into your question.
Elbutre88
Pretty much a regular
look i think ted wells doing anything for the NFL is gonna reek of some good ol boy bullshit. the nfl has given wells' firm millions of dollars in business, but if they felt like brady wasn't cooperative--and it sure looks that way, then it makes sense that they included that.
i mean, if brady sat down with them in the beginning just to get some kind of timeline, but then when after they had the ball boy's cell phone, brady was nowhere to be found---then it looks pretty shady. it sure looks like he didnt' cooperate from here. maybe in the beginning, but when shit got real he was a ghost.
L
Lareux
Guest
Whether he was cooperative or not (in their opinion), why wouldn't an interview, where the questions were answered, be included in a 300+ page report? If they thought he was lying and wasn't being cooperative, wouldn't that be all the more reason to include what he said? And then they can use their "proof" to show he was lying or not being forthcoming?
It just seems that if you're going to go through the trouble of acquiring info and then releasing a huge report, you should probably include the interview you did with the person who is accused of being part of the conspiracy. Or else, it looks like the author of the report is trying to hide something himself (not saying he is, but that could easily be the perception). They asked questions, he gave answers...there is no good reason that interview wasn't included in the report.
L
Lareux
Guest
The whole segment was science...that's what they do. It isn't a long segment, only a few minutes long. They tested the grip strength of someone catching and throwing the ball based on the psi, they tested the flight pattern of balls based on psi, they tested the mass reduction of the ball based on psi...they conducted science experiments on the footballs, based on psi (exactly what you asked for).
The NFL made ESPN pull the video if I'm not mistaken...right? The video was posted in this thread, wasn't it? If not, it's easy to find...actually if you google Sport Science, the Deflategate video is one of the first results.
Interestingly, they concluded that rain during a game would have 10 times more of an effect on the weight, flight, etc on the football than the discrepancy that was seen in the psi of the footballs.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
I don't know why they pulled it down, I watched it then. Maybe it was complete bullshit and molded to fit an agenda, other scientists have differing opinions so I wouldn't exactly call its findings fact. Who knows?
It doesn't take a lab for me to know personally, it's easier for me to grip even a slightly deflated ball (any sport) than a fully inflated one. And it doesn't take a lab for me to know the slightest difference in how a basketball bounces given its inflation. I don't need some dbag reporting those differences to me. It's obvious.
It doesn't take a lab for me to know personally, it's easier for me to grip even a slightly deflated ball (any sport) than a fully inflated one. And it doesn't take a lab for me to know the slightest difference in how a basketball bounces given its inflation. I don't need some dbag reporting those differences to me. It's obvious.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
That's why Tom Brady's rain dance videos have all been destroyed.
D
dudleysdad
Guest
Larry
How many times are you going to bring up the sports science segment? Jeez
How many times are you going to bring up the sports science segment? Jeez
L
Lareux
Guest
No scientists came out against what they concluded in that segment. The differing opinions were over whether or not a temperature change could have done it...and it was disputed because it was initially said that all of the balls were 2 lbs of psi under, when it turns out 11 of the 12 were only a few ticks under.
You're also using an example (easier to grip) based on a ball that is greatly under inflated. It's NOT easy to tell the difference at the levels 11 of the 12 balls were under, and there isn't really a difference in the flight of the ball, etc at the level 11 of the 12 balls were under. That's what they showed when they conducted the segment. They didn't go in with an agenda....they let the science experiment give them the conclusion. You're a big proponent of science (seemingly)....what's different about this Sport Science segment that is making you think it's BS?
We also aren't talking about a basketball and how it bounces, we're talking about throwing and catching a football. And the segment showed that there is really no discernible difference between the performance of the football at the level 11 of the 12 footballs ended up being. Apparently it's not that obvious, or they would have concluded what your opinion is, not what they did.
L
Lareux
Guest
As many times as it takes for someone to actually watch it, or show proof that what they concluded isn't true. Am I wrong?
D
dudleysdad
Guest
It doesn't matter what a scientist says.
Brady likes the ball a under inflated. He feels more comfortable throwing that type of ball BUT it's against the league rules.
L
Lareux
Guest
Right. Again, we were talking about whether or not an advantage was gained....that was it. So, it certainly matters when a scientific experiment is carried out to see if there is any advantage to be gained from using a football a few ticks under in psi.
Rodgers likes them as hard as a rock, maybe as much so that it's against league rules. Doesn't matter because my only point was that an advantage wasn't being gained.
:shake:
D
dudleysdad
Guest
Yes an advantage was gained. Call it a mental advantage or whatever.
If Brady is hell bent on throwing an under inflated ball it must mean a lot to him. No?
He gets the under inflated ball and he is more comfortable, makes him a better player
L
Lareux
Guest
Using that logic, every player in the league gains an advantage over their opponent. Manning gains an advantage because he is more comfortable throwing with a glove on his right hand. Some gain an advantage because they paint their faces with eye black, which makes them more comfortable.
:cigarguy:
D
dudleysdad
Guest
but the glove is not.against the rules. Either is the face paint
An under inflated ball is against the rules
L
Lareux
Guest
But it doesn't give him an advantage...mentally I guess it may, but it doesn't give one otherwise.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
This physics professor apparently thinks at least some advantage is gained, go figure
Whatever fits your plot, you can find it, there are plenty more
Whatever fits your plot, you can find it, there are plenty more
L
Lareux
Guest
This is what he said (the copy and paste below). It was also mentioned in the article about 2 lbs of psi under...the balls weren't that far under. He also said if you can deform the ball....there is no way that a ball a few ticks of psi under would be easily deformed, as he implied (again, he was speaking to a ball being 2 lbs of psi under). KJ, they actually showed guys catching the balls and tested the grip strength, etc in that video. This guy was clearly just giving a broad based opinion...when he does the experiments, let me know.
"Ideally, the way people are taught to catch it is to put their hands around the nose of the ball," Morales told Live Science
. "That way, you've made a little cone with your hands, the ball goes in, and in that case, the pressure [within the ball] really doesn't make any difference."But difficult plays can make it hard for players to catch the ball that way during games, he said. Oftentimes, players will end up squeezing the football with their hand and trapping it against their chests.
"If you can deform the ball, if you can pinch the ball, then it's easier to stop," Morales said,
L
Lareux
Guest
Also from that article, an asst. physics professor had this to say. He mentions that a difference of 2 psi isn't even that much...and 11 of the 12 balls were much, much less than 2 lbs of psi under.
A quick calculation shows that the difference in mass between a fully inflated ball and a slightly deflated one is fairly small, Michael Eads, an assistant professor of physics at Northern Illinois University, said in a statement emailed to Live Science.
A deflated football has a smaller mass because it has fewer gas molecules inside of it. Assuming that the temperature is 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius), the mass of the air in a football inflated to 12.5 psi is about 0.39 ounces (11 g). A football deflated to only 10 psi has a mass of 0.36 ounces (10.2 g). The difference is about the weight of a paper clip, Eads said.
Similarly, a difference of 2 psi in a football isn't that large, he said.
The rest of the football's mass comes from its materials, such as the leather and rubber, which add up to about 14 ounces, Eads said.
It's also possible that the pressure of a football filled in a warm roomwill drop once it's taken into the cold outdoors.
"Colder gas molecules move more slowly [and], hence, don't hit the walls as hard, and so the pressure is less," Eads said.
A quick calculation shows that the difference in mass between a fully inflated ball and a slightly deflated one is fairly small, Michael Eads, an assistant professor
of physics at Northern Illinois University, said in a statement emailed to Live Science.A deflated football has a smaller mass because it has fewer gas molecules inside of it. Assuming that the temperature is 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius), the mass of the air in a football inflated to 12.5 psi is about 0.39 ounces (11 g). A football deflated to only 10 psi has a mass of 0.36 ounces (10.2 g). The difference is about the weight of a paper clip, Eads said.
Similarly, a difference of 2 psi in a football isn't that large, he said.
The rest of the football's mass comes from its materials, such as the leather and rubber, which add up to about 14 ounces, Eads said.
It's also possible that the pressure of a football filled in a warm roomwill drop once it's taken into the cold outdoors.
"Colder gas molecules move more slowly [and], hence, don't hit the walls as hard, and so the pressure is less," Eads said.
L
Lareux
Guest
Oh, JFC KJ. Seriously? Take the tin foil hat off man. They now manipulated the data for their TV segment?
To answer your question (again)....personal preference. Rodgers throws rocks.
Just say you're arguing with me because it's me and you're a dick and we can move on. You claim to be a science guy, but now you're trying to say they may have manipulated the data that they showed on the video?
L
Lareux
Guest
It is based on the video evidence of the scientific experiment that was carried out. If you have another experiment and its results to show, please do so.
Similar threads
