Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
New England cheated? >

New England cheated?

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

New England cheated?

Old 01-21-2015, 05:33 PM
  #11  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,221
Default

I discussed this with someone at work. It wasn't very cold during the game, hence the Boyle's Law theory doesn't readily explain the discrepancy.

I think each team may be responsible for providing the footballs that their own offense uses on the field. Hence, if the Colts supplied regulation pressure balls, their offense would be playing with fully inflated footballs; if the Patriots supplied under pressure balls, their offense would be playing with underinflated footballs. So it would benefit the cheaters.

Still, I'm reserving judgment. Let the NFL investigators investigate and figure out what wrong. I don't hold with premature condemnation.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:33 PM
  #12  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,542
Default

Originally Posted by RobertSubnet View Post
Let's not forget the park service as well.
And, "Never let a crisis go to waste". Remember that gem that was brought to you by the Party of the Idiots?
flags is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:36 PM
  #13  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,954
Default

Originally Posted by grinder67 View Post
Ok! What? I have no idea what your talking about.
Sorry for the fat fingers.

Colts for Indy are dead name for your team. They need a new name that promotes Indy. Go ahead and cheer for them but to claim the name colts, forget about it.

This day and age, I can't see why Indy folks can't become original or tie back to their roots. We're not talking something stupid like the Redskins stuff. That'all.

Colts are tied directly to Baltimore. Does Indy not relate to a better team name or are they just another town?
Fieldmouse is online now  
Old 01-21-2015, 09:06 PM
  #14  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,954
Default

So here is the real question, what was the actual pressure the balls were inflated to? I suspect the actual number may be just a tenth or 2 below. This could be a controversy all for hype.
Fieldmouse is online now  
Old 01-21-2015, 10:41 PM
  #15  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 1,778
Default

anyone see a snow plow?
Tundra10 is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 04:44 AM
  #16  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,221
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
So here is the real question, what was the actual pressure the balls were inflated to? I suspect the actual number may be just a tenth or 2 below. This could be a controversy all for hype.
What I have heard -- and I can't vouch for the authority of the sources, I think all public information at present flow from leaks -- is that 11 of 12 Patriot balls were underinflated by 2 PSI. Players (Michael Strahan on Good Morning American earlier this week did) say that this much deflation DOES make a significant difference in ability to grip the ball, for both passing and catching the ball. Supposedly, this whole thing developed because a Colt defensive player intercepted a Brady pass, kept the ball, thought it felt soft, gave it to a Colt coach for inspection, and when the ball was found underinflated, the Colts called this to the attention to the officiating crew, which led to testing all the Patriot balls and correcting their pressures.

2 PSI light is 15% light, but more importantly it is a difference that players claim DOES provide an advantage. It was an advantage that was NOT afforded to the Colts, because their offense played with fully inflated footballs, it appears.

Again, as far as I know none of the publicly available information can be deemed authoritative, so some skepticism and reserve of judgment is proper.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 04:54 AM
  #17  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,221
Default

I have heard some people calling for disqualification of the Patriots for playing in the Super Bowl, if it is determined that they cheated by underinflating footballs. There is a lot of difference of opinion on this. I sense there is some sympathy with this position, but that even those who sympathize with that position recoil for some reason from that decision. I think there is a reservation related to legitimacy, how can this be decided?

An interesting thought on this came to me on my way to work this morning. Going forwards, of course, there ought to be black letter rules established for how such cheating is handled in the future. If the rules say "cheating results in forfiture of the game or games proven to have been cheated. Cheating twice results in permanent expulsion of the guilty parties from the league. Cheating three times results in disbanding the team permanently." Or whatever rules the league establishes. The question is what to do -- with no established rules or procedures on the books -- in the present case.

What about letting the players of the NFL vote on the question, excluding the Patriot players and the Seattle players? It could be argued the owners have too much of a money stake in things and they would make a decision that protects their perceived value stake in the vote. Players have a money stake too, but it is different, and I believe they are still partly motivated by love of the game and a sense of fair play -- or at least enough of them to make such a vote meaningful.

To me this kind of process would make whatever decision resulted "legitimate." It would relieve a lot of pressure from the shoulders of the commissioner and directors of the NFL.

There is a further question whether excluding the Patriots from the Super Bowl would be legal. Maybe it would not be legal.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 05:09 AM
  #18  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

The idea that each team provides their own balls seems a bit unbelievable. Would they switch balls with each change of possession? I don't think so.

It looks like the officials take charge of the ball and place it where it's supposed to go to start each play. When the offense comes on the field, the ball is already there. They don't bring one with them.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 05:11 AM
  #19  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,697
Default

it was cold - balls deflate in cold weather

at any time, the officials could have made the decision - but it was less than 2# per ball right? how can you tell that ?

Was it intentional ? I dunno - both teams had to play with the same balls ..... why would it have been such a huge advantage for NEP and not IND ?

and it doesn't matter to the RB's and INDY had no running game
Ranger77 is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 05:23 AM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,863
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
The idea that each team provides their own balls seems a bit unbelievable. Would they switch balls with each change of possession? I don't think so.

It looks like the officials take charge of the ball and place it where it's supposed to go to start each play. When the offense comes on the field, the ball is already there. They don't bring one with them.
Teams have always had the ability to work on their gameballs before the game. Scuff them up, rub off the shiny coating etc. Just forbidden to deflate the balls.

In Baseball the umpire muddies up a bucket of balls for each game to avoid such problems to make them "not new"

Not sure why the NFL can't do the same thing.

Although the all mighty NFL can do whatever they want.
NeverWill is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.