Posted on 05/09/2015 10:23:18 AM PDT by drewh
The Patriots are concerned that quarterback Tom Brady could face a suspension ranging from six and eight games, according to a report from CSN New England.
Any punishment from the NFL would result from the recent Ted Wells report, which stated "it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware" that footballs were deflated below the league's minimum requirement against the Colts in the AFC Championship.
Following the AFC Championship and leading up to the Super Bowl, Brady told reporters he was confident that no one in the Patriots organization broke any rules. Footballs must be inflated to 12.5 PSI to meet league standards. Footballs tested at halftime in the AFC Championship game were underinflated.
Brady made an appearance at Salem State University as part of a speaker series on Thursday but declined to talk much about the Deflategate controversy.
However, he did answer a question as to whether he thought the Patriots' Super Bowl victory over the Seahawks was tainted as a result to the controversy.
“No, absolutely not," Brady said, via The Boston Globe. "You know, I've dealt with a lot of things in the past, I dealt with this three months ago. I've dealt with a lot of adversity in my career, and I'm fortunate I have so many people that love me and support me, and certainly I accept my role and responsibility as a public figure, a lot of it you take the good with the bad ... We'll get through it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at fantasynews.cbssports.com ...
Yes, I know the Maine House is controlled by democrats.
The GOP picked up 10 seats there last November, but not enough to control it.
Fifty-percent of the dems in the Maine House and virtually
all of the Republicans support Constitutional Carry. The Bloomturd Everytown gang is trying to sabotage CC, but I don’t believe they will succeed.
Sorry to hijack the thread.
As for Tom Brady, yes, Maine is NE Patriots country.
The man should only be suspended if there is concrete evidence of his involvement, rather than circumstantial.
Rush has done a pretty good job of covering this 228 page report on his radio show.
P.S.: Your “smoking the conservative koolaid” comment gave me a chuckle. I do bleed red, white and blue when I cut myself, however.
Have a great weekend!
The endless reporting on Tom Brady has erased the story of Hillary and her erased servers from the media, if it was reported much in the first place.
How convenient for Hill and Bill.
I once saw a post here on FR that stated it was against the NFL rules to tape a team’s practice session from the field, but it was OK to do so from the stands?
Does anyone know if that post was true?
If it was, then other teams could tape the Patriots’ practice sessions as well (if it’s OK to do so from the stands).
Same standard as many civil suits. Some are B.S. (Many aren't) So the standard itself used says nothing in and of itself.
Therefore, ya gotta go back to basics...
All the texts exchanged tween Brady and the two equipment mgrs...
One of them hasn't visited Brady post-game locker room for 20 yrs...suddenly does it after Colts after he knows the lid's been blown off...
Like a major league pitcher who's been handed a plastic t-ball to throw, knowing the hitters can't hit it as far, Brady certainly knew either from warm-ups on or the first series on or both that he was dealing with less-psi footballs...either that or he isn't a professional QB...
Etc.
What was good for Shoeless Joe Jackson, is good for Brady.
Good chart. So then, the other 31 teams and the entire NFL officiating corps have to be bungling incompetents for not catching the Pats at it for all these years. No wonder New England wins so much.
BTW, I damn sure think that there should be two different categories for losing the ball when you
A-— just mishandle or drop it.
B——have it forcefully taken away from you.
Fumbles and strips should be counted separately.
Whatever this person is, it is from New York. Not the paragon of Conservative American virtue either.
Sounds like a loser Jets fan.
So since Brady is undeniably guilty then he can’t win if this ends up in legal action between him and the League?
I think that a civil case with actual real discovery might show that things aren’t so clearcut right now.
And I’ll say it again—the Colt defence was playing with deflated balls too.
See this from Carnegie Mellon Mech Engineers at Headsmart LAbs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg
It accounts for all the observations if one assumes that the balls started at 12.5 psi.
OK...I spent 2 minutes watching it...(for some reason my speaker sounds kicked out...so didn't hear what they were saying)...
But even visually, I IMMEDIATELY saw a few BAD "scientific" premises there...And they are Carnegie Mellon Engineers?
(Well, they may be engineers, but not football fans who actually know the context of a given NFL game)
Bad Premise #1: They assume EVERY football was established at the EXACT lowest psi level allowed (12.5).
Here's the problem with that: If the Pat guy responsible for submitting these balls for official approval sets each one exactly at 12.5 when they are in his hands...and then somehow in the interim before the psi is checked, all 12 balls somehow "slide" to, say, 12.4 or 12.3, then he's just given the head official a clue that they're trying to circumvent the rules. No equipment guy is going to set all 12 balls at exactly the lowest psi rating allowed.
So, bad presumption to start.
But that's not the weakest argument.
Bad premise #2: That these footballs were either wet when re-checked, and/or wet for very long during the course of the game, which impacted their PSI levels.
What? These engineers didn't know ballboys exist on each sideline with towels in hand?
What? These engineers don't don't think the official who rechecked them at halftime had dry balls in hand by then? What? They didn't think wet balls weren't shuttled to the sidelines after each play and immediately dried, limiting their exposure to wetness?
Did these experiments reflect that these balls were all re-dried when re-checked? (yes or no?)
Did these experiments reflect that the balls weren't really wet for all that long during the course of the game, especially if a lot of them were used? (yes or no?)
They design football helmets, they know far more than you or I.
Yes the used the premise of how would a football inflated to 12.5 psi would react to the climatic conditions present that evening the results showed that you would see a definite drop in psi. The experimental results the came up with were very close to the halftime results the officials observed.
Perhaps you weren’t watching the game, it was played in a DRIVING rainstorm the game balls were SOAKED, we had > 1 in during the game. So their method was sound.
I will point out the real problems here, The NFL had no recorded psi for either team Pergame, so there was no baseline for comparison with the
halftime measurements. Frankly the Wells report should have focused of the lack of process, but that isn’t what they were being paid to do.
So like all lawyers the made the case their client Wanted made.
Wells isn’t an independent investigator, he is a hired gun for Goodell’s, he defended the NFL in the concussion lawsuit, the firn he hired to run their science experiment was hired bt Tobacco firms to ‘prove’ that cigs don’t cause cancer, product lawsuits against auto firm ect.
The N FL had an ananda and paid for the desired result.
Alright, what's so hard to understand the math here?
(1) There were probably 60 non-special teams' plays in that first half (by both teams together)
(2) The two teams supplied 24 (total) balls.
(3) On any given play of those 60, 96% of those balls are secured on the sideline in bags that keep them relatively dry.
(4) If each of the 24 balls were used equally in the first half on those 60 plays, then each ball averaged 2.5 plays...FOR THE ENTIRE HALF!
(5) Even when those balls may be used for 2-3 plays over the entire half, they are never used in a wet game on consecutive plays. They are shuttled out to the ball boy who dries them with a towel.
(6) So EACH ball, on average, has 2-3 minutes of wet exposure THE ENTIRE HALF!
(7) When I saw the YouTube PSI check "experiment," it was on a wet ball. Yet I guarantee you those balls when checked at halftime, were no longer wet...because the ballboy did his job the entire first half...drying them as they came off the field.
So are you trying to say that 2-3 minutes of wet exposure, plus whatever pregame warmup time on TWO or so of those dozen balls, is such a monumental difference? REALLY?
If so, you flunk basic math. And that's where these "engineers" flunked basic principles here. They were so into elemental dynamics here that they totally ignored and negated overall context.
Heh...
Deflating Outcome: The New England Patriots Fumble Prevention Record Is Statistically...Unusual
http://www.thelowdownblog.com/2015/01/deflating-outcome-new-england-patriots.html
The Patriots’ improbably low fumble rate raises more questions
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/25/7887057/patriots-deflategate-fumble-rate-tom-brady-bill-belichick
The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible
Analyst: Patriots Fumble at a ‘Nearly Impossible’ Rate
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/01/25/patriots-fumble-nearly-impossible-rate/LCgrlUR9qgxDsIgcal9dUI/story.html
The Patriots Became Nearly Fumble-Proof After a 2006 Rule Change Pushed by Tom Brady
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.html
Per the report, of the four Colts balls that were measured, after warming up at half time, only one was then barely within specifications, the others were below 12.5 PSI, and all those the Colts used - if starting out at the 13.0 to 13.1 that the ref stated they did - were well below the specifications during game play.
The report also points out, that on average, the Patriots balls were within the expected range, plus the variance one between the two different gauges they used. The also concede that all of the pressure drop could have been natural, but unlikely.
They’re quibbling about a couple of tenths of a PSI, with a variance of 1.2 PSI from temperature alone. Plus the varying states of wetness from ball to ball.
He didn’t seem to notice the change in the balls, up to and including at least one ball over the maximum 13.5 PSI.
He did, however notice when the refs pumped up the balls to near 16 PSI and gave them to him during the Jets game....which prompted the texts that are being used in questionable context. (Brady had apparently chewed out the equipment staff over it, and it rolled downhill to McNally who referred to himself as the ‘deflator’ in the aftermath, and McNally discussed actually inflating them further in response with the guy Brady talked to).
The biggest part of this seems to be the choice between torpedoing Brady, and admitting the referees hadn’t been attending to something that such a big fuss has been made over.
1.2 PSI drop from the actual officials room to the field. The report confirmd that...though it has some trouble deciding upon the effects of the balls being wet.
Game and signals can be taped from an area with walls on three sides, not practice sessions. There is no one who has ever said they were a witness to the Patriots taping anyone else’s practices. The reporter who dropped that bomb turned out to not have a source and his newspaper published a half page retraction.
The “smoking gun” texts are a discussion of the aftermath of the refs pumping the Pats game footballs up to near 16 PSI, and discusses pissy vengeance by McNally at having gotten grief through the grapevine for it...in October. Part of the aftermath was apparently Brady finding out what the rule actually said and having a copy of the rule supplied to the refs before the games to let them know they didnt have to pump them up beyond the supplied 12.5 PSI.
It fits well with Rogers implication that the refs would pump the balls up extra hard because he liked them that way.
The Falcons and the Colts both had runs like the Patriots, and the Patriots during their run haven’t even led the league. The numbers in the orginal articles were torn to shreds by pretty much everyone with ability to do statistical analysis.
No, but a couple of Pats fans wrote a rebuttal that didn’t catch on, except among other Pats fans.
I don't give a Continental dollar about the Pats and Brady, however rules are rules and I have over time learned there were there is smoke, fire is often found.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.