Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)

[12punch]

-12 balls underinflated

-Kravitz gets a call from an unnamed source that the Pats used tampered with balls

-Kravitz says D'qwell Jackson discovered the fault

-D'qwell denies that

-report from unnamed source claims that the Colts knew ahead of time

-Kravitz claims that he received another report from the same source that Baltimore warned the Colts

-NFL contacts Harbaww, has no idea what anyone is talking

-Kravitz claims without a source that the K-balls in the NE/BAL game were tampered with

So at the moment, something prompted the refs to investigate the balls at half time. Thats all we actually know.

this is actually the most entertaining part about the whole thing

all these salty trolls and gossip queens build this whole house of cards based on some tweet they read, then 6 hours later some new 'report' comes out completely invalidating everything they've cooked up in their head, so they get right to work on the next days of our lives script, which gets trashed 6 hours after that.

you salty trolls are an industrious lot -- I'll give you that

 

[Niles Standish]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Tomlinson carried 712 times without a fumble. Doesn't this implicate Rivers too? Tomlinson's fumble rate went back to league average when he was with the Jets!!!

Just read the study.

I did read it, the Pats were 3rd best in the periods discussed. I'm looking at the Peyton Colts as a different entity because I'd imagine if it's due to deflated balls then it makes sense to look at them separately by QB. Since most of us would agree this is a QB thing.

So we have:

1) Peyton Manning Colts

2) Matt Ryan Falcons

3) Tom Brady Patriots

So if you infer the Pats are cheating from this study it's hard not to infer Ryan and Manning are also cheating. Just my opinion.

 

[mbuehner]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

Why hasnt the NFL come out and said the balls were measured... consider that is the crux of this problem.

They did. That is what is meant by inspected. Ever had an inspection done on anything you own, worked on, or created? There are lots of measurements taken, but that isn't all. The word inspection implies measurements and other forms of critical observations were made.

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

 

[moleculo]

I've inspected lots of things without taking a measurement.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

Why hasnt the NFL come out and said the balls were measured... consider that is the crux of this problem.

They did - but you just can't see it I guess.

They state what the requirement is.

They state the referee is responsible for inspecting the football to see if it meets that requirement.

They state that was done.

 

[Witz]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

Why hasnt the NFL come out and said the balls were measured... consider that is the crux of this problem.

They did. That is what is meant by inspected. Ever had an inspection done on anything you own, worked on, or created? There are lots of measurements taken, but that isn't all. The word inspection implies measurements and other forms of critical observations were made.

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

Enough with the ball boy - it was comments from a ball boy from 12 years ago.

 

[MG345]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so is pretty clear.

 

[mbuehner]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so is pretty clear.

I dont have your level of trust in the NFL, and with good reason I think. I would like to hear definitively that all the balls in that game were measured beforehand, and I dont believe we will ever hear that specifically.

 

[Run It Up]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so far doesn't imply different.

Its more important than being the sticking point of this specific argument.

Its the difference between a non-issue and one of the most hilariously egregious cheating scandals.

Its the difference between something that literally everyone does and went undetected because it is in the gray area of the rules that no one cares about, to a comical scenario that says someone intentionally deflated the balls in full view of the crowd, opposing team and all the cameras - yet shockingly went undetected.

EVEN MORE SO, that people are suggesting this has been happening for years and has never been detected. Like ####### seriously?!

 

[rockaction]

Cheaters.

Nice.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's pretty obvious why the NFL is being vague about the initial inspection. They did it properly with a gauge. But if they come out and SAY this, they'd be stating 100% that the Patriots cheated. And they can't do that because of the image problems. So they're being slightly vague with their description of the initial process, so they can give the Pats some kind of fine in a few weeks and let it blow over.

 

[MG345]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so is pretty clear.

I dont have your level of trust in the NFL, and with good reason I think. I would like to hear definitively that all the balls in that game were measured beforehand, and I dont believe we will ever hear that specifically.

If you don't trust the NFL, there is nothing they can say that will persuade you short of showing you on camera that they were checked. At that point this conversation is useless, because if that is the level of verification you need, you won't be getting it. That is on the same level as ROCKET who said they needed more proof than a murder trial.

 

[12punch]

A lot of discussion here about 30 degrees, when in fact the temperature at the game was 51 degrees.

This guy did the calculations - he uses 49 degrees as the gametime temp going from 70 degrees:

atriotsniknight_ml[] 42 points 4 days ago*

Science teacher here. Given the conditions of the game, a ball which meets specifications in the locker room could easily lose enough pressure to be considered under-inflated. Some math:

Guy-Lussac's Law describes the relationship between the pressure of a confined ideal gas and its temperature. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the football is a rigid enough container (unless a ball is massively deflated, it's volume won't change). The relationship is (P1/T1) = (P2/T2), where P is the pressure and T is the temperature in Kelvins.

The balls are inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 psi at a temperature of 70 degrees Farenheit (294.1 K). Let's assume an average ball has a gauge pressure of 13 psi. This makes the absolute pressure of the ball 27.7 psi (gauge + atmosphere). Since these are initial values, we will call them P1 and T1.

The game time temperature was 49 degrees F (278 K). We are attempting to solve for the new pressure at this temperature, P2. We plug everything into the equation and get (27.7/294.1) = (P2/278). At the game time temperature, the balls would have an absolute pressure of 26.2 psi and a gauge pressure of 11.5, below league specifications.

*Furthermore, given that it was raining all day, the air in the stadium was saturated with water vapor. At 70 degrees, water has a vapor pressure of 0.38 psi. The total pressure of the ball is equal to the pressure of the air inside the ball and the vaporized water in the ball. At 49 degrees, the vapor pressure of water is 0.13 psi. Up to 0.25 additional psi can be lost if the balls were inflated by either the team or the refs prior to the game. Granted, it's unlikely that anyone would inflate balls from 0, but it easily could cost another couple hundredths of a psi in pressure.

For a ball that barely meets specifications (12.5 psi gauge), it's pressure would drop to 11.1 psi during the game... enough to be considered massively underinflated.

edit: As the poster noted below, forgot to account for the difference between gauge and absolute pressure. Calculations have been updated.

Also the game balls were likely measured inside so a 10.5 PSI inside at 70 degrees would have been 9.1 on the field.

this guy is actually right on the money

I posted a vid of some guy actually chilling a ball and I think the pressure went down 1.4 psi on a 24 degree drop

 

[CapnJB]

Viagra or Cialis would seem like the perfect sponsors for the pregame ball inflation.

I'll just leave this here

 

[moleculo]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

yeah I know. I wish the author had done some of the analysis a little differently. I'm sure someone will get on it. i'd like to do it, but my boss expects me to do at least a little work today.

Here's how I'd improve the data:

1. look at RB/WR/TE fumbles only. QB's losing the ball due to blind-side hits, or poor snaps, or mike vick not tucking the ball when he runs...those shouldn't be considered.

2. control for team A vs opponent, home and away...come up with sometihng like Atlanta Falcons fumbled 5 less more per hundred carries than their opponents, Buffalo Bills fumbled 10 times more per hundred carries than their opponents, something like that. This would completely take venue out of the occasion.

If you could show that the Patriots backs fumbled less than opponents, regardless of location, I think that would be pretty strong.

Still, the data as shown is pretty compelling, it just needs to be explored further.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

 

[MG345]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so far doesn't imply different.

Its more important than being the sticking point of this specific argument.

Its the difference between a non-issue and one of the most hilariously egregious cheating scandals.

Its the difference between something that literally everyone does and went undetected because it is in the gray area of the rules that no one cares about, to a comical scenario that says someone intentionally deflated the balls in full view of the crowd, opposing team and all the cameras - yet shockingly went undetected.

EVEN MORE SO, that people are suggesting this has been happening for years and has never been detected. Like ####### seriously?!

Yeah, that is what a sticking point means.

 

[12punch]

Here's a question though. Cold weather teams fumble more. But cold weather teams also (assuming on average everyone starts at the same inflation) have less inflation due to temperature.

Some science guy help me out with this one.

BAM!!

 

[MG345]

Here's a question though. Cold weather teams fumble more. But cold weather teams also (assuming on average everyone starts at the same inflation) have less inflation due to temperature.

Some science guy help me out with this one.

BAM!!

Cold fingers, harder ground.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

Nice post.

 

[rockaction]

Here's a question though. Cold weather teams fumble more. But cold weather teams also (assuming on average everyone starts at the same inflation) have less inflation due to temperature.

Some science guy help me out with this one.

BAM!!

Cold fingers, harder ground.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

Nice post.

Incredible post. Good work.

 

[MG345]

Here's a question though. Cold weather teams fumble more. But cold weather teams also (assuming on average everyone starts at the same inflation) have less inflation due to temperature.

Some science guy help me out with this one.

BAM!!

Cold fingers, harder ground.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

Nice post.

Incredible post. Good work.

Excellent encouragement. Keep it up.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Here's a question though. Cold weather teams fumble more. But cold weather teams also (assuming on average everyone starts at the same inflation) have less inflation due to temperature.

Some science guy help me out with this one.

BAM!!

Cold fingers, harder ground.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

Nice post.

Incredible post. Good work.

So what if the Pats ball security vs their opponents magically got better the same year the rules were changed to allow the visitors to bring their own balls. I mean, that could be just another in a string of huge coincidences.

 

[Niles Standish]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable. I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

yeah I know. I wish the author had done some of the analysis a little differently. I'm sure someone will get on it. i'd like to do it, but my boss expects me to do at least a little work today.Here's how I'd improve the data:

1. look at RB/WR/TE fumbles only. QB's losing the ball due to blind-side hits, or poor snaps, or mike vick not tucking the ball when he runs...those shouldn't be considered.

2. control for team A vs opponent, home and away...come up with sometihng like Atlanta Falcons fumbled 5 less more per hundred carries than their opponents, Buffalo Bills fumbled 10 times more per hundred carries than their opponents, something like that. This would completely take venue out of the occasion.

If you could show that the Patriots backs fumbled less than opponents, regardless of location, I think that would be pretty strong.

Still, the data as shown is pretty compelling, it just needs to be explored further.

advancedfootballanalytics is on it.

So they're 3rd best. Time to sharpen the pitchforks!

 

[Anarchy99]

Maybe NE players understand that if they fumble the football they won't see the field and will lose their jobs? That certainly is some serious motivation, don't you think? If other coaches just say "oh well" and players have job security locked up and can keep fumbling, how is that the Patriots fault? NE has always valued holding on to the ball and not turning the ball over. In fact, most of the time that is their central strategy (well, when they are not too busy cheating). Many games they are happy to just play conservatively and let the other team beat themselves.

 

[RUSF18]

Inspected could very well mean examined with the hands and eyeballs, as the ball boy interview claimed was common.

It could, but when the league says they all the balls came out within the proper range, that implies they know that for a fact.

Again, I get it. This is the only sticking point in the argument, and people want to be clear on what exactly went down. But the league is being quite clear that the balls were legal when they left the refs inspections, everything else is people playing with semantics.

If it comes out that the refs didn't properly inspect them so be it, but what the NFL has said so is pretty clear.

I dont have your level of trust in the NFL, and with good reason I think. I would like to hear definitively that all the balls in that game were measured beforehand, and I dont believe we will ever hear that specifically.

I think the NFL would LOVE to come out and say that the ref didn't follow the appropriate procedure. "It was a mistake, we'll take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again," etc. It even has the backing of a former ref in Austen who still has a presence and is saying he never checked the balls to this standard. And it throws everything else off in the story, as the worst case for the Pats would be that they intentionally submitted under-inflated balls but it would never be able to be proven, absent another smoking gun. All they'd have to say is we submitted the balls and didn't realize they were under the standard, and since there is no punishment for that (because if it was tested properly, they would just be inflated from there), they have their bases covered.

And the controversy goes away and people would focus on the game much quicker than it will at any point with how it's currently being handled.

 

[shader]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[MG345]

So they're 3rd best. Time to sharpen the pitchforks!

With the other two teams being dome teams that don't play in the elements.

 

[Niles Standish]

Maybe NE players understand that if they fumble the football they won't see the field and will lose their jobs? That certainly is some serious motivation, don't you think? If other coaches just say "oh well" and players have job security locked up and can keep fumbling, how is that the Patriots fault? NE has always valued holding on to the ball and not turning the ball over. In fact, most of the time that is their central strategy (well, when they are not too busy cheating). Many games they are happy to just play conservatively and let the other team beat themselves.

Almost as motivated as the Falcons, Saints and Peyton's Colts.

 

[karmarooster]

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

If you're talking about the same study, he also compares fumbles vs. fumbles loss, and further refines to non-dome teams. The results are un-ambiguous.

This thread, and all the media hoopla is focused on one game.

What if there was cold, hard data with statistical analysis that proved the Patriots had a statistically abnormal fumble rate for every season going back to 2007? Such that the chance of it randomly occurring was less than 0.001%?

What if their fumble rate was such an outlier as to suggest that this was a long running scheme?

Find it here:

Good lord.

Maybe the ball boy is behind the grassy knoll.

Ergh, number hard. Graphs many. Make simple for brain?

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Im sorry is that relevant somehow?

It uses a single variable (BJGE) and considers it in two contexts - with the the stimulus and without. Obviously it's anecdotal.

 

[MG345]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. The Patriots do fumble at a lower rate, by far, than other outdoor teams. They also are now suspected of deflating their footballs, which would help in many aspects of the game such as fumbling less. Those things are both true.

 

[shader]

A lot of discussion here about 30 degrees, when in fact the temperature at the game was 51 degrees.

This guy did the calculations - he uses 49 degrees as the gametime temp going from 70 degrees:

atriotsniknight_ml[] 42 points 4 days ago*

Science teacher here. Given the conditions of the game, a ball which meets specifications in the locker room could easily lose enough pressure to be considered under-inflated. Some math:

Guy-Lussac's Law describes the relationship between the pressure of a confined ideal gas and its temperature. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the football is a rigid enough container (unless a ball is massively deflated, it's volume won't change). The relationship is (P1/T1) = (P2/T2), where P is the pressure and T is the temperature in Kelvins.

The balls are inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 psi at a temperature of 70 degrees Farenheit (294.1 K). Let's assume an average ball has a gauge pressure of 13 psi. This makes the absolute pressure of the ball 27.7 psi (gauge + atmosphere). Since these are initial values, we will call them P1 and T1.

The game time temperature was 49 degrees F (278 K). We are attempting to solve for the new pressure at this temperature, P2. We plug everything into the equation and get (27.7/294.1) = (P2/278). At the game time temperature, the balls would have an absolute pressure of 26.2 psi and a gauge pressure of 11.5, below league specifications.

*Furthermore, given that it was raining all day, the air in the stadium was saturated with water vapor. At 70 degrees, water has a vapor pressure of 0.38 psi. The total pressure of the ball is equal to the pressure of the air inside the ball and the vaporized water in the ball. At 49 degrees, the vapor pressure of water is 0.13 psi. Up to 0.25 additional psi can be lost if the balls were inflated by either the team or the refs prior to the game. Granted, it's unlikely that anyone would inflate balls from 0, but it easily could cost another couple hundredths of a psi in pressure.

For a ball that barely meets specifications (12.5 psi gauge), it's pressure would drop to 11.1 psi during the game... enough to be considered massively underinflated.

edit: As the poster noted below, forgot to account for the difference between gauge and absolute pressure. Calculations have been updated.

Also the game balls were likely measured inside so a 10.5 PSI inside at 70 degrees would have been 9.1 on the field.

this guy is actually right on the money

I posted a vid of some guy actually chilling a ball and I think the pressure went down 1.4 psi on a 24 degree drop

I get this...but what about the Colts balls. What were they measured at before the game, and at halftime, and when the game was over?

Or were the Colts extra careful because they knew they'd be blowing the whistle?

 

[shader]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. The Patriots do fumble at a lower rate, by far, than other outdoor teams. They also are now suspected of deflating their footballs, which would help in many aspects of the game such as fumbling less. Those things are both true.

It's a conspiracy theory of the highest order, the very definition of a conspiracy theory. You are suggesting that the Patriots have had a decade-long conspiracy to keep balls deflated and that this deflation of the balls has kept them from fumbling at the "normal league rate" for the last ten years.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Maybe NE players understand that if they fumble the football they won't see the field and will lose their jobs? That certainly is some serious motivation, don't you think? If other coaches just say "oh well" and players have job security locked up and can keep fumbling, how is that the Patriots fault? NE has always valued holding on to the ball and not turning the ball over. In fact, most of the time that is their central strategy (well, when they are not too busy cheating). Many games they are happy to just play conservatively and let the other team beat themselves.

Yeah definitely. They began to clearly understand that in 2007 obviously.

 

[Niles Standish]

So they're 3rd best. Time to sharpen the pitchforks!

With the other two teams being dome teams that don't play in the elements.

Atlanta has fumbled less away from home 5 straight years.

NO has fumbled less away from home once, less at home twice and the same the other 2 years.

 

[12punch]

btw, while you winners are in here all friday arguing about whether the hamburglar stole 2 lbs of air, brady's at his villa bangin' a supermodel

 

[Touchdown There]

I have not read one page of this thread, because it is a waste of time. Who cares? Refs will start supplying the balls. Problem gone.

 

[MG345]

So they're 3rd best. Time to sharpen the pitchforks!

With the other two teams being dome teams that don't play in the elements.

Atlanta has fumbled less away from home 5 straight years.

NO has fumbled less away from home once, less at home twice and the same the other 2 years.

They play in a lot of domes on the road, and in warmer weather, due to their division.

 

[Bucky86]

Here is an interesting excerpt from one of the articles posted.

"The game official mentioned something about their efforts to locate a usable football. Shortly after, Jackson noticed that the Patriots were using the Colts' footballs late in the first half. Jackson said it was odd to him that New England couldn't find a football to use, especially in the AFC Championship Game"

This happened during an especially long timeout in the first. It appears to me that at some point a referee noticed a Patriots ball was under inflated based on the feel, and probably went to the ball boys to get another and noticed they all felt a little off, thus forcing him to go to the Colts ball boy in order to get the game going again.

 

[devouredbychaos]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

Haters gonna hate, right? Seriously people, find something better to do with your time then try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. I've never seen a group of grown men so bitter over a football team. The fact that this thread is 60 pages long, all due to speculation and allegations is quite hilarious. Can't wait to see the reaction when it comes out that the Patriots had no part in this.

 

[MG345]

Here is an interesting excerpt from one of the articles posted.

"The game official mentioned something about their efforts to locate a usable football. Shortly after, Jackson noticed that the Patriots were using the Colts' footballs late in the first half. Jackson said it was odd to him that New England couldn't find a football to use, especially in the AFC Championship Game"

This happened during an especially long timeout in the first. It appears to me that at some point a referee noticed a Patriots ball was under inflated based on the feel, and probably went to the ball boys to get another and noticed they all felt a little off, thus forcing him to go to the Colts ball boy in order to get the game going again.

Yeah, that part stuck out to me too.

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

Haters gonna hate, right? Seriously people, find something better to do with your time then try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. I've never seen a group of grown men so bitter over a football team. The fact that this thread is 60 pages long, all due to speculation and allegations is quite hilarious. Can't wait to see the reaction when it comes out that the Patriots had no part in this.

But it isn't speculation. The balls were under inflated.

 

[Anarchy99]

I was going to say what other areas can NE be accused of cheating (there potentially could be plenty), and I was going to throw out the field as one of them (as a joke). But then I remembered they had a time when that really did happen. At one point, they still had a grass field and left it beaten down and uneven and teams complained. Then without really telling anyone they resodded the field and it was terrible. The seams weren't great, huge chunks and divots would come out, and it was like playing in a minefield. Then they went to sports turf and I can remember people complaining about when they covered or cleared the field. And who could forget 30+ years ago dragging out the snowplow to clear a spot to make a game winning kick in a blizzard. So add "field preparation and maintenance" to the long list of ways that NE has pushed the envelope.

 

[Niles Standish]

So they're 3rd best. Time to sharpen the pitchforks!

With the other two teams being dome teams that don't play in the elements.

Atlanta has fumbled less away from home 5 straight years.NO has fumbled less away from home once, less at home twice and the same the other 2 years.

They play in a lot of domes on the road, and in warmer weather, due to their division.

So why are Tampa and Carolina used in the proof? Come on dude these stats are silly. And the fact that your running circles to try and defend them is silly.NO ATL are dome teams. They do better on the road. It's their division. Why are their division mates in there? Because they don't play in a dome.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I have not read one page of this thread, because it is a waste of time. Who cares? Refs will start supplying the balls. Problem gone.

Huh? Anyone who cares about an organization systematically cheating. Problem is not gone when refs start supplying the balls, unless you think the deflated balls are the problem. Maybe you should read the thread or not comment.

 

[12punch]

From King's Report

• The 12 footballs used in the first half for New England, and the 12 footballs used by the Colts, all left the officials’ locker room before the game at the prescribed pressure level of between 12.5 pounds per square inch and 13.5 psi.

• All 24 footballs were checked by pressure gauge at halftime. I am told either 11 or 12 of New England’s footballs (ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported it was 11, and I hear it could have been all 12) had at least two pounds less pressure in them. All 12 Indianapolis footballs were at the prescribed level.

• All 24 footballs were checked by pressure gauge after the game. All 24 checked at the correct pressure—which is one of the last pieces of the puzzle the league needed to determine with certainty that something fishy happened with the Patriots footballs, because the Colts’ balls stayed correctly inflated for the nearly four hours. There had been reports quoting atmospheric experts that cold weather could deflate footballs. But if the Patriots’ balls were all low, and the Colts’ balls all legit, that quashes that theory.

He uses the phrase "were checked by pressure gauge" twice, both in referring to halftime, and after the game, but not in reference to the pregame check. Why make that specific distinction twice but not three times?

Saying they all left the inspection between the proper ranges implies that not only were they checked, they were legal.

It does imply it, but why specify it twice and not all three times?

They are specifying it when they say they were in the proper range. Stop being daft.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NEW-Fumble-Chart-3.png

That site has been down most of the afternoon, after it got posted on Reddit. Here is a mirror (sort of): http://i.imgur.com/7VtMGwg.jpg

link to reddit thread?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Seahawks/comments/2tdpq2/new_englands_miraculously_low_fumble_rate/

Do you know what this implicates?

that the pats are really ####### awesome at recovering fumbles

 

[shader]

You know what else is really out of the norm for the Patriots?

12 division titles in 14 seasons!

OMG CONSPIRACY!!! THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USING DEFLATED BALLS THE WHOLE TIME!!! No one else has done that, so it's gotta be cheating!!!

 

[karmarooster]

You know what else is really out of the norm for the Patriots?

12 division titles in 14 seasons!

OMG CONSPIRACY!!! THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USING DEFLATED BALLS THE WHOLE TIME!!! No one else has done that, so it's gotta be cheating!!!

Well, yes, apparently they've been using either Spygate or Deflate gate for each and every one of those seasons.

This is like saying "You know what else Barry Bonds did?? 762 Homeruns! OMG He was obviously juicing the whole time." Obviously he was a very talented player, even great as a 5 tool player early in his career, and the juice didn't hit all of those homeruns, nor did the juice turn a bad player into a good one. But his record is tarnished because of cheating.

Brady is still a good QB, and Bill is still a good coach. Cheating didn't make them everything they are.

 

[shader]

You know what else is really out of the norm for the Patriots?

12 division titles in 14 seasons!

OMG CONSPIRACY!!! THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USING DEFLATED BALLS THE WHOLE TIME!!! No one else has done that, so it's gotta be cheating!!!

Well, yes, apparently they've been using either Spygate or Deflate gate for each and every one of those seasons.

This is like saying "You know what else Barry Bonds did?? 762 Homeruns! OMG He was obviously juicing the whole time." Obviously he was a very talented player, even great as a 5 tool player early in his career. But his record is tarnished because of cheating.

Terrible analogy, but then i'm not surprised you guys are missing the point here.

 

[Old Smiley]

Grantland's nfl podcast is out and Barnwell blew off the fumble thing pretty strongly. He called it the Wyatt Earp effect. I have no idea what that is but he says it's where if you look hard enough for an outlier you'll find one.

He puts it down to drafting good ball handlers and pass happiness.

I'm not a numbers guy so, I'm just passing that along.

FYI:

"Some in the statistical community refer to this as the Wyatt Earp Effect. You’ve undoubtedly heard of Wyatt Earp, who is famous precisely because he survived a large number of duels. What are the odds of that? Well, it depends on your perspective. The odds that one person would survive a large number of duels? Given enough time, it becomes a statistical certainty that someone would do just that."

 

[pats3in4]

I was going to say what other areas can NE be accused of cheating (there potentially could be plenty), and I was going to throw out the field as one of them (as a joke). But then I remembered they had a time when that really did happen. At one point, they still had a grass field and left it beaten down and uneven and teams complained. Then without really telling anyone they resodded the field and it was terrible. The seams weren't great, huge chunks and divots would come out, and it was like playing in a minefield. Then they went to sports turf and I can remember people complaining about when they covered or cleared the field. And who could forget 30+ years ago dragging out the snowplow to clear a spot to make a game winning kick in a blizzard. So add "field preparation and maintenance" to the long list of ways that NE has pushed the envelope.

I think the bad sodding job was in 2006 and it backfired against the Jets as the Pats played like they were in quicksand. I forget the exact scheduling, but I think they had their bye the following week and perhaps a road game before their next home game and wa la, the Field Turf was in for the next home game.

 

[karmarooster]

You know what else is really out of the norm for the Patriots?

12 division titles in 14 seasons!

OMG CONSPIRACY!!! THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN USING DEFLATED BALLS THE WHOLE TIME!!! No one else has done that, so it's gotta be cheating!!!

Well, yes, apparently they've been using either Spygate or Deflate gate for each and every one of those seasons.

This is like saying "You know what else Barry Bonds did?? 762 Homeruns! OMG He was obviously juicing the whole time." Obviously he was a very talented player, even great as a 5 tool player early in his career. But his record is tarnished because of cheating.

Terrible analogy, but then i'm not surprised you guys are missing the point here.

It's actually a perfect analogy. Other players juiced, just like other teams (probably) deflated. Bonds was good before juicing, just like the Pats are good without cheating.

 

[devouredbychaos]

Here is an interesting excerpt from one of the articles posted.

"The game official mentioned something about their efforts to locate a usable football. Shortly after, Jackson noticed that the Patriots were using the Colts' footballs late in the first half. Jackson said it was odd to him that New England couldn't find a football to use, especially in the AFC Championship Game"

This happened during an especially long timeout in the first. It appears to me that at some point a referee noticed a Patriots ball was under inflated based on the feel, and probably went to the ball boys to get another and noticed they all felt a little off, thus forcing him to go to the Colts ball boy in order to get the game going again.

Yeah, that part stuck out to me too.

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

I wouldn't waste a single minute of your time reading conspiracy theories that try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. Absolutely ludicrous.

Haters gonna hate, right? Seriously people, find something better to do with your time then try and pin this on a lack of fumbles by the Patriots. I've never seen a group of grown men so bitter over a football team. The fact that this thread is 60 pages long, all due to speculation and allegations is quite hilarious. Can't wait to see the reaction when it comes out that the Patriots had no part in this.

But it isn't speculation. The balls were under inflated.

So I guess I missed when the NFL came out and said that the balls were under inflated... Again, you're basing your claims off of Mortenson's report. That's speculation.