Yeah, I take a different view than some/most on cheating in sports. For me what matters is did that athlete do something against the rules that gave him/her a competitive advantage vs. others. If yes, then I think it matters and the athlete should be punished. If no, then I don't think it matters much even if it's against the rules. Where I start to care in that second case is that it makes comparing across different eras harder.
The home team handles the balls right? Bring it out to the field? So we either have video of the Patriots deflating all those balls, in all those away games, over thoseyears, or the Pats fumble advantage was gained solely at he games. Has anyone yet ran the numbers on fumbles home vs away? http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-...atriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710/1702950988 Fumble argument is not compelling. The difference between the Patriots and The rest of the league is like 1.5 fumbles. Per rush and per reception differences are minimal. Benching Rdfley for two years saved you 2-3 a year.
2012-2014 Patriots only 3rd in fulling rate behind Ravens and Saints. http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...s-really-give-the-patriots-a-fumble-advantage The fumbling argument is really silly since the original study has been discredited and ridiculed.
I'm not sure that's true. I don't know what the rule is, but when there's a switch over the ref will call for a ball and he usually gets it from the respective team's sideline. At least that's what I've seen happen.
It's still an unknown advantage. Maybe the Pats would have been worse or those 1.5 fumbles may have been the difference in a key game. To me it's obviously easier to catch and hold onto a slightly deflated ball. I can't speak to to passing personally other than presumably smaller hands would prefer a slightly deflated ball. I just can't ignore that and assume it didn't make a difference. When a team or player goes out of their way to bribe or instruct their equipment guy to steal the balls back after the ref approves them it's obviously something they think is a big deal. That's the issue with all the cheating. There's no reason to do it unless you believe it provides an advantage. So if you've done it there's no reasonable way for the team or player to argue it doesn't provide an advantage.
Not true at all....if it would have been Henne, he would have been suspended for the year. What amazed me is the number of Dolfans defending this as*hol*. This team has been caught over and over again..should be 1 year minimum for Brady and BB....their record and 4 SB Victories are an absolute joke and an insult to all NFL fans..if they have to cheat to win then they do not deserve the victory...these tight Super Bowl Victories that they have been involved in are questionable..with deflated balls, how many fumbles were prevented..plenty of proof out their to show their extreme decline in fumbles lost...CHEATERS*
I mean from the room where they test, until it hits the sideline, is handled from the home team I thought. Isn't that why the Patriots ball handler was carrying two bags, one of the Pats and one of the Colts. On the away games, the Patriots ball handler would have to tamper with them in the open, with the cameras. At least that's what I remember from the Wells report.
But you're assuming they did this for every game for the past 7 years, and for this you cite the fumble evidence, and now that the fumble evidence isn't as compelling, you're sticking with the assumption and no longer even using the fumble rates to support the contention in the first place. Quite a sleight of hand you're using there. By this new argument you've just created, they could be just middle of the pack, or even at the bottom in fumbles, and now you're saying, Yeah but they could have been worse. Similar to the liberals arguing about the stimulus, jobs created or "saved." Yeah we only created 50,000 jobs this month, but we could have lost 200,000 so it's 250,000 jobs saved or created. It's a success!
Its funny how you bring up politics, as I was just thinking that the lines of seperation in this thread are also pretty much the same as they are in the political ones. The liberal guys are against cheating and want things to be fair and equal, and the conservative guys either don't care about cheating or are actually in favor of it if someone can get away with it. Just like in regular life outside of football. Funny how things transcend from one to another.
It's also assuming that no other teams were tampering with balls. And they punishment for under-inflated balls was only $25k...barely even a blip. Lying to Goodell is what got then in so much trouble.
Regarding the issue of how much effect on wins/losses the Patriots' low fumbling rate from 2007 onwards has had.. The stats show the Patriots had an average of 90-95 plays per fumble from 2000-2006, but had around 165-170 plays per fumble from 2007-2014. Patriots have averaged 68 plays per game from 2007-2014, so that means they averaged ~5 fewer fumbles per year from 2007-2014 vs. 2000-2006. This link shows the impact of turnovers on wins for the last 5 years: http://illegalhit.com/2013/06/18/impact-turnovers-winning-football-games/ A turnover differential of 5 more (over a season) corresponds to ~1 extra win per season. That's of course only looking at the effect of fumbles, nothing else. Either way, one extra win per season is a big deal.
Right but we had reports from Feeley that they were using their practice balls in games. It would be very easy to simply be tossing those balls in when their offense takes the field.
Of course I'm assuming that! This is a team that has been caught cheating multiple times in multiple ways. Why would anybody assume there was a time when they weren't cheating? And my argument has never changed. I responded to a post about fumbles, but it's never been about just one thing. My argument has always been that all the various ways they have been cheating were done b/c they believed it gave them an advantage. It's ridiculous to argue that they were cheating for no reason at all.
I agree with most of this, except for the part about if a ball gets through the check that it's not cheating. It is. If you knowingly submit overinflated balls, and even one gets through, then you are knowingly playing with a ball that does not meet the rules...and you are cheating. Now, I agree, that is not as egregious as physically tampering with the balls after the check...but it's still cheating. You're doing the same thing, playing with illegal balls, just went about it differently.
But if you're submitting them to be checked then you don't "know" they're over-inflated. In fact, you'd have to believe they're either at the limit or so close as to be approved.
No...maybe you realize that many officials don't really check them...so you submit a couple overinflated balls. Why would Arod admit that he is unhappy when overinflated balls don't make it through, due to refs taking out air? If they're weren't past they legal limit, then the balls wouldn't be changed by the refs. Here is the quote from Phil Simms on what Rodgers told him:
Wouldn't all of this just be avoided if the officials were the only ones to touch the balls before the game? I don't care if the guys get the balls just the way they want them. If everyone is playing with the same ones, its fair.
Pushing the limit or going over a little bit to see what they allow is not cheating IMO. You are testing to see what the system allows. Brady was cheating.
Hold on. Purposefully inflating balls to over the legal limit, and then submitting them to the refs, hoping that one gets through, and then playing with it if it gets through, isn't cheating? The rule clearly states that playing with a ball that falls outside of the allotted range means that you are playing with an illegal ball. There aren't any rules dictating ways of cheating the system in order to get a ball outside of the allotted limits.
No it's cheating all the same, I agree. Maybe not as agregious, but definitely cheating. The big difference between GB doing that, is they don't have an established legacy of cheating to gain unfair long-term advantages like NE does.
If you're submitting to the check and abiding by it's rules you are working within the system and therefore not cheating.
Why can't the NFL inflate ALL footballs and handle all of them from start to finish each game for both teams? This would make it even and fair across the board and eliminate this kind of cheating. This obviously makes too much sense for Goodell. Was there a rule change or something that gave the teams control of the footballs? Because I don't remember that to be the case before recently.
Every range is going to have acceptable error. Over inflating the ball slightly is just trying to find how much acceptable error the rules allow. That's testing the limits of the rules not circumventing them.
Yeah, Peyton and Brady lobbied the NFL to change the rules. I think it was in 2007. They had enough power that the rules were changed for them.
I think it's also a logistics thing. The teams have footballs and ball boys, equipment guys etc. that are at the site of the games. The NFL doesn't have the kind of staff. All they really send to games are officials who are part time employees.
The NFL makes more money than any other sport on the planet. They could easily afford to hire a small staff (1-2 people per game) to handle this. Also, what did they do with the footballs before the 2007 rule change?
You would think but they've resisted multiple calls for full-time officials over the years. I don't recall specifically but I think it was the home team's responsibility to provide all the game balls. I don't know that going to that system would be a great idea b/c I wouldn't trust the Pats to follow the rules. I would prefer the NFL just hire the staff as well since their whole point in this issue is the integrity of the game. I think that would be the best way to protect it. But obviously I'm not making the decision here.
Disagree completely. You are not working within the system, if you are over-inflating, and hoping to get one through the check. In the end, you're still playing in a game with a ball outside the legal limits. That is cheating. No, you can have your ball from 12.5-13.5 psi. That is it. You cannot be under. You cannot be over. If your ball falls outside of the prescribed limits, then you are playing with illegal equipment. Cheating. They have a rule that says 13.5 is the max. Want it more than that? Too bad. You can't. The rule says no less than 12.5. Want it less? Too bad. You can't. Inflate the balls to the within the legal limit.
I don't believe your stance reflects reality. Reality isn't precise. Even somebody who is trying to follow the rules will sometimes submits balls outside the range. Just pushing the gauge in a little more or less will result in a slight difference in the reading. Differences in temp and humidity will cause small alterations. Obviously not to the level that the Pats were claiming, but there are small alterations. If I want the ball to be at the max and I believe that the weather will cause the real pressure to be a little lower to account for the effects of weather on a ball that will be tested an hour from now then I'll go a little over and try to guess how much will be lost during that time. I'm not trying to cheat. I want the max the rules allow, but I'm guessing as to how to get there. Reality is that humans will always allow a little fudge range to account for that.
There has to be a backdoor hidden agenda for the NFL to not handle something so simple and easy to do like this. I've said for years the NFL is corrupt from the top brass, to some owners, to certain players, to the refs (especially the refs). There is just too much evidence to prove otherwise. The NFL is on a direct course to becoming the NBA. When that happens, it's "Game Over" for them and their billions of $$$ monopoly.
I agree with what you are saying in this post, Raf...however, what you are saying, and what Rodgers said to Simms, are two different things.
I don't really see a difference. I'm telling you that if I want the max then I'm going to push the limit and even go over sometimes. If I'm too aggressive it's the ref's job to correct it. That's basically what Rodgers said. The important point is that the balls are always submitted to the check and I abide by what the ref says.
I've always hated the subjective elements of officiating, fouls in the NBA and PI in the NFL, that affect the game in huge ways. For PI the rules say that both the defender and the receiver have equal rights to the ball, but reality doesn't reflect that.
No you are not. Tampering with the footballs after the refs check them is a greater infraction. But knowingly playing with a non compliant football is as well. The rules are clear.
