Bad Morty
-
Posts
981 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Bad Morty
-
-
That's pretty funny, because you don't seem to be interested in the fact that the AEI report's findings don't make any sense, since it's against the narrative YOU choose to believe.
Well...I can tell you that Paul Tagliabue found their research into Bountygate compelling enough to lift ALL of the suspensions that were handed out to players...so you can stew on that a bit.
-
Very nice side step Morty. What I asked before and will ask again. When did they start measuring the ball pressure and when did they stop measuring it. How long does it take to measure the pressure. This needs to be answered before this "amazing discovery" has the least bit of credibility. It could be that they didn't start measuring the PSI when half time started and it could be they stopped before half time was over. It does take a while to get in to the locker room and back out before the second half starts. You would also need to note the pressures of the last couple NE readings to the first couple Colt readings. To say that the Colts balls warmed for 10 minutes after the readings were completed on the NE balls is simply ridiculous.
ah...so as you circle around the point here, look at exactly what you are saying...i.e. the measurements at half time were not exactly done in anything close to resembling a controlled scientific environment. In fact, you are correct in pointing out (as the AEI report did) that we have NO DATA on exactly when the tests were done on the balls, which makes drawing conclusions using the measurements pretty shaky...So let's recap...
1) We don't know for sure what gauge was used to measure the balls pre-game. Given the 2 possible gauges measured 0.4PSI differently, that's an unfortunate missing data point
2) We have no record of the timing of the ball measurements, in an environment were the ball pressure is changing by the minute
Those are the two most critical pieces of information we should have in order to do real solid scientific analysis!! And we don't have either of those things. Do you agree that if Anderson only had one gauge with him and all the balls were measured outside in a constant environment that we would have MUCH more conclusive data to go on when determining what happened? Let's see how honest you can be in answering that question.
If you are honest and you agree, then I'm sure you will understand that the variables that were introduced by having a possibility of a second gauge and a testing environment that wasn't stable makes drawing conclusions from the data open to much more assumption...
-
Ahhhh, I see you have no logical answer to the fact than the Pat measurements didn't get higher as your crackpot theory would suggest, so you use the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger. Kind of what I expected...
no not really...I'm just tired of re-stating the actual findings of the AEI report for people who obviously aren't really interested in what's being said because it goes against the narrative they've chosen to believe.
-
Here's an interesting read, come to find out one of the AEI Authors is a Greenfield Massachusetts native and the other a Harvard grad...interesting.
http://www.atlredline.com/hacks-desperately-try-to-disprove-deflategate-1711426528
lol...yeah that's interesting alright. I think you figured it out! Clearly, this individual has decided to put his entire life's work on the line to release an analysis filled with lies because he's mad that a football player got suspended. That makes a TON of sense! Nice detective work there.
-
It does say so in the Wells Report itself. It says they set up in the officials room where both sets of balls were on a chair. They measured the Pat balls, and then they measured the Colts' balls. But to believe one set was warming and the other wasn't is incorrect. One guage showed that the Pats' first five balls had the exact same average measurement (to the hundredth) as the last five balls. This debunks the theory that rapidly warming balls is the reason for the Pats much higher percentage of deflation. We should have seen the measurements getting noticeably higher as refs progressed through the Pats' balls if that theory was correct...
Hmm...let's see...torn here...do I go with the analysis of a renowned think-tank, or do I go with "some guy on the internet who doesn't like the fact that the Wells report is getting shredded"? Tough call....
-
So, if you don't dismiss the text messages; does that mean that you think the Patriots were full of snot with their rebuttals such as the "Deflator" referring to weight loss?Also, it sounds to me like you think McNally and Jastremski were guilty of doing something . . . such as checking the footballs after inspection to be sure that they hadn't been inflated past Tom's preference.If that's the case, why wouldn't the Patriots have found this out themselves when they talked to those employees? A simple admission of what they had done would have gone a long way in putting all this to rest.Or, do you think that McNally and Jastremski lied when questioned and that the Patriots bought their story? If so, then many Patriot fans are directing their venom at the wrong targets.
I think it was a mistake for the Patriots to try to explain away the text messages. I think they should have just stuck with hammering the inconclusive science. Believe me - I don't at all disagree with the notion that the Patriots haven't helped themselves much in the way they've handled it. But two wrongs don't make a right either. I am convinced that the league saw halftime measurements of Patriots balls in the 11's and thought "A HA!! WE CAUGHT THEM RED HANDED!" without having one iota of a clue about the natural deflation rates of footballs in the cold. Had they gone into this knowing to expect readings of over a pound below the pre-game starting point based on the conditions, they would have seen the measurements, realized that whatever they thought happened didn't really happen and they (the league) would have simply come out and told us all about the ideal gas law, pointed out that both teams balls were tested at halftime, both teams balls were lower than where they started the game, and scientists confirmed that balls deflate naturally when moving from warm air to cold. Then it's over.
-
I didn't miss that point at all - it is exactly what I said. And my counterpoint was that the Colts' balls were certainly measured immediately after the Pats' balls. The average measurement times of the two teams' balls is maybe 5 minutes apart. This notion that the Colt balls were measured at the end of halftime, whereas the Pat balls were measured at the beginning is poppycock. The notion that the additional time the Colts' balls sat before measuring is the reason for the different inflation levels is only valid if that extra five minutes of warming can make a significant difference in air pressure. I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I would guess that it takes longer than a 12-minute halftime for the balls to significantly warm in the locker room. Kind of supported by the fact that there's not much difference between the 1st five Pat balls and the last five Pat balls to be measured (exact same average for Blakeman's guage and .10 higher average for the last five balls on other guage).
Poppycock? Read the Wells report yourself. All 11 Patriots balls were measured TWICE and their measurements logged from each gauge. Then they measured the Colts balls and ran out of time. They say it themselves.
-
If that were the case, it would make sense. But if the Pats were just making sure the refs didn't overinflate the balls, why wouldn't they just say that and be done with it?
There's a couple of reasons...
1) It being Superbowl week, they didn't want to risk the possible penalties that might come from admitting a violation
2) It's very possible that Brady had no idea they were doing this, if this is what they were doing. There's NO possibility that Brady wouldn't have been aware of a scheme to set those balls below the legal limit to get an advantage.
That's another reason why this idea of deflating balls to gain an advantage seems unrealistic. Let's say Brady really like the balls deflated by 2 lbs. But we know that they don't have access to the balls during road games. It just doesn't seem likely to me that he'd want to play half his games with a low-pressure ball and the other half with fully inflated ones. I would think it's far more likely that he'd want to use balls that were consistent from week to week. When you step back and really look at what the accusations are here versus the evidence, it doesn't really add up.
-
Now, how do we know that they were burned by the refs in a Jets game? Because that was part of the conversation between McNally and Jastremski.Yet, the Patriots have answered to some of the other content of those texts and have said that the texts were "jocular" and "attempts at humor and exaggeration".And, for the most part, Patriot fans have jumped on that explanation.So, my question is:How can Patriot fans take the texts talking about being burnt by the refs as truth from two guys who were being "humorous and exaggerating" about everything else?
I don't dismiss the text messages. Live I've now said many times, I think those guys violated a league rule. I just don't think they were doing what you believe they were doing. I'd need to see ball measurements that leave no doubt that there was a scheme to deflate balls to gain an advantage in order to believe that theory. You are telling me they did that, Wells is providing measurements of the balls at halftime that refute that.
-
While what you said is technically possible, it would still be a violation of the rules, as you said. Plus, he can't just take air out of the balls, claim it's at 12.5 by his gauge, and hand the balls to Brady. He would probably need ref/league approval for something like that. But even if that were the case, why would Brady be so unwilling to co-operate? Why wouldn't the Patriots simply say that's what happened?
I don't disagree with any of this. Believe it or not, I actually find it not very plausible that a guy took a bag of footballs into a bathroom and then provided 3 different stories as to why he did that...so I'm pretty sure some violation took place. What DOESN'T make sense to me is that all of this was done to end up with 3 balls that measured above where the ideal gas law would predict and 6 others that are within 0.3 psi of that level, which is what you get in the WORST case scenario Wells lays out, and even that conclusion seems to have a lot of questions surrounding it. To me, if the end goal was "deflate those balls below the limit and get us an advantage", we aren't going to be sitting here today exchanging thousands of words about whose science to believe...the measurements at halftime are going to be unequivocal. So what really happened? And the thing that makes the most sense to me is that the guy was gauging balls to make sure the ref didn't over inflate them as happened in the Jets game, and perhaps letting some air out if the balls were reading high. At the end of the day, if their gauge is off from the official gauge, it's not going to be by a significant enough difference that anyone would notice. Heck - the ref himself brought 2 different gauges to the game that gave readings 0.4PSI different from one another.
-
No offense .. but I would suggest you VL and Morty PM each other. It's 100% evident that you'll change no ones mind on this board.
The big difference I believe is , other than NE fans , no one believes there is a conspiracy to take the Pats down. Other words .. Goodall didn't really say "here's 5 million .. come back saying NE and Brady are guilty."
How much can we go over the same stuff ? And besides that .. to be honest ...you all have been wrong at every prediction made on this thus far.
you must not have read the AEI report, the Washington Post article, or numerous other scientific critiques. Repeating "only Patriots Fans think this was a set-up" doesn't make it reality.
-
. This one takes the 
eh..if you thought about for a second and removed your bias, it actually makes a lot of sense. What part of it doesn't make sense? I know McNally was lying, and you know that the science isn't a slam dunk that the balls were deflated.
Why is it out of the realm of possibility that the guy wasn't gauging the balls (illegally) to make sure the refs set them to the right level, given that the "flash-point" incident per the Wells report seemed to be a game where the refs DIDN'T do it right? I have no doubt that had McNally found the balls to be at 13PSI that he would have let air out of them to get them to 12.5...but it doesn't (and never did) pass the logic test to me that they would be running a scheme to take 0.2 - 0.3 PSI out of balls (which is the worst case scenario in the Wells report). Hell - the officials gauges alone, depending on which one they used, had a 0.4 PSI variation. If they were trying to take air out of the balls to gain an advantage, those balls would have all been down significantly below where they should have been and we wouldn't be here picking at minutae.
-
Yeah well it's the Washington Post, and uh...Washington is uh...sorta kinda near Boston, so...uh...obviously biased...
-
LOL.
LOL is right...
"The AEI analysis suggests that NFL Players Association Director DeMaurice Smith was right when he said the Wells report “delivered exactly what the client wanted.” It suggests that this wasn’t an investigation; it was a frame job by the commissioner’s office desperate to reestablish its authority.
Brady may or may not win his appeal. But there is one sure loser here, trapped in a box of his own making: the commissioner."
-
And this from the Washington Post...
"The NFL paid millions for a fundamentally flawed report by lawyer Ted Wells that made Brady and the Patriots out to be slam-dunk guilty, based on more than 100 pages of mathematical analysis of ball pressurization . . . that turns out to be erroneous. The AEI’s report totally rejects the finding that the footballs used by the Patriots in the AFC Championship had a significant drop in air pressure compared to the Colts. But the truly damning sentence is this one, buried in its erudite phrasings and equations: “The Wells report’s statistical analysis cannot be replicated by performing the analysis as described in the report,” the AEI concludes. Translated into normal English: The math didn’t add up. It’s a standard principle in science: If you can’t replicate a set of results, then there is a problem with them. A flaw or a fraud is at work. Either you made a mistake, or you made it up.
When the AEI analysts looked more closely at how such a mistake could have been made, what they found “astonished” them, says the report’s co-author Stan Veuger. The Wells report “relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes.” Translation: The Wells report said it would use one equation, but then used a different (and weird) equation to arrive at its numbers.
“It was really clumsy,” Veuger says. “It’s the kind of mistake you’d see in freshman statistics class.” "
-
The funny thing about many Pat fans' response to the Wells Report: they point out all the flaws in the way the refs conducted and documented the analysis and say that it won't hold in court. However, one must remember that the referees were not processing a crime scene. They have no experience doing this and probably thought the whole thing was stupid and would come to nothing. So, yes, it would have been better if they measured the Colt balls and Patriot balls concurrently. Yes, it would have been better if they documented the pre-game measurements and which guage they used. But they didn't, so we've got to use the measurements we got. And, as others have noted, this is not a courtroom, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not going to apply (not even in some kind of civil suit").
To me, to suggest that the Colts' balls were over-inflated seems like a weird claim. But the real weird thing is that the whole argument here against the Wells report hinges on the belief that the Colt balls warmed for significantly longer in the locker room. Logically, you'd have to think that once the refs set up a system for guaging the balls and calling out their numbers, it would all go pretty fast after that (30-40 seconds per ball for both guages' measurements???). So the Pats' balls would take seven minutes at the most, and you'd assume they'd immediately start on the Colts' balls. There is nothing to suggest that the Pats' balls were measured at the beginning of half-time and the Colts' at the end. (Plus, that would be silly given the fact that they can motor through them once they have the system set up.) At any rate, I don't know how quickly the warmer room takes to affect the air pressure in the ball, but I don't think an average of five minutes or so additional time that the Colt balls were in the room before measurement isn't going to make a huge difference.
And for conspiracy theorists, once you do the math on the 30-40 second figure (that I made up), the measurement alone takes up 7.5 - 10 minutes of a standard 12-minute half-time. Can't imagine it began until the refs took a leak either. No, these guys did the best they could without crime scene training and in the time allotted. And the half-time measurements are pretty damning for the Pats, which is why the INDEPENDENT Wells Report found the Colts' balls were in line with the ideal gas law and the Pats weren't...
You are missing quite a few things I think
1) The AEI report wasn't suggesting that the Colts balls were "overinflated", i.e. that they were suddenly over the legal limit...they are saying that they measured at levels which would far exceed their expected measurements having been out in the cold for the first half...that is because they were measured after they had warmed up in the room.
2) Your "timing of how long it would take" is well and good, except the Wells report makes it clear that the reason only 4 Colts balls got measured is because they ran out of time and had to start the 2nd half. That proves that the Colts balls sat there for the duration of the halftime before someone started taking measurements
Your first point (about it not being treated like a crime scene) - I agree with that 100%. These are NFL refs, not lab scientists. But as you also noted, the scientific analysis done by Wells after the fact is limited by how the refs handled the situation. Yes - had the refs had the foresight to measure the Colts and Pats balls at the same time to eliminate any effect of warming back up, that would have made for a much more convincing scientific analysis after the fact...but they didn't, and by definition the analysis takes a hit because of it. Every mis-step they made from "perfectly controlled lab conditions" to "normal NFL halftime" results in another "assumption" that has to be factored in after the fact in order to draw conclusions...that weakens the case.
-
But then we are taking your word for it that McNally snuck to let air out BUT KEPT THE PRESSURE ABOVE 12.5 PSI, because he wanted to be a fair nice guy and still play within the legal limit.
And by the way, McNally may not have taken ANY air out of the balls. It's completely logical to think that having been burned once by the refs in the Jets game he was basically double checking to make sure the refs did what he asked them to do. Again - he's not allowed to do that, which is why he was deceptive when asked.
-
But then we are taking your word for it that McNally snuck to let air out BUT KEPT THE PRESSURE ABOVE 12.5 PSI, because he wanted to be a fair nice guy and still play within the legal limit.
no - you aren't taking my word for it...you are taking the word of the Wells report science, which even if you take his worst case assumption (which other science outfits disagree with), it's not really a slam dunk case that those balls were deflated significantly if at all.
-
I understand. My reading and interpretation of the Wells report doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, though.
When tested, all of the Patriots footballs — both game balls and back-up balls — registered on the lower-end of the permissible inflation range. Anderson recalls that most of the Patriots footballs measured 12.5 psi, though there may have been one or two that measured 12.6 psi. No air was added to or released from these balls because they were within the permissible range. According to Anderson, two of the game balls provided by the Patriots measured below the 12.5 psi threshold. Yette used the air pump provided by the Patriots to inflate those footballs, explaining that he “purposefully overshot” the range (because it is hard to be precise when adding air), and then gave the footballs back to Anderson, who used the air release valve on his gauge to reduce the pressure down to 12.5 psi.
So the balls were already at 12.5 psi before McNally got to them. However, since McNally/the Patriots/Brady have denied the whole thing, it's hard to know what gauge McNally used and how that ties in
I like detective stories, so I'm really just trying to find a logical/plausible story line that ties together 2 things:
1) The deceptive behavior of McNally/the texts/other circumstantial evidence surrounding this that paints an incriminating picture
2) Science that doesn't really provide conclusive proof that a crime took place
My version of that is that McNally was armed with his own gauge (we know these guys have them since the Colts guy had one at the ready to gauge the intercepted ball). He gets the balls from the ref...we know in hindsight that Anderson set the balls to 12.5, but we also know there was apparently a history of the refs inflating balls above the specs that the Pats gave them (i.e. the Jets game incident).
So does it not make sense that McNally felt as though his "job" was to not take the ref's word for it that the balls were inflated to 12.5? Last time he took their word for it, Brady got over-inflated footballs and McNally got his butt chewed out the next day...soooo....to prevent an episode like that, you take the balls behind close doors, you quickly gauge them all...maybe you let air out if they are over 12.5...then you get them to Brady. In that scenario, McNally is still violating a rule that he felt the need to lie about, but at the end of the day the balls are getting in to the game at the 12.5 level they are supposed to be at which is why the halftime measurements don't really conclusively prove that anything happened.
-
I'm more interested in seeing what their methods are. While past precedence is something notable to consider, I don't think you can ignore information just off the basis of who is saying it. That is, we can't discount what AEI says or what Exponent says because Exponent has said incorrect things in the past or AEI has said incorrect things in the past. If their methods are solid and their data is reproducible, or at least can be calculated by a 3rd party, then what they're saying has more merit.
I'm really interested in seeing the methods of the AEI report. The Wells report appears, to me anyway, to have a pretty solid method for their testing. I want to know how two groups testing the same thing using the same equation (Ideal Gas Law) can get opposing results.
I think it's a misconception that AEI did their own testing. They didn't. They are using the data Wells provided via the Wells report and ripping apart their methodology, pointing out among other things that they reached a conclusion based on their calculation of the relative changes in pressure of both teams balls without testing all of the possible scenarios that might have taken place pre-game regarding gauge use and that they either overlooked or didn't properly account for the Colts ball re-pressurizing in the warm room at halftime. Now I'll admit, I'm having a hard time getting to the core of this as the Wells report does mention pretty clearly that they were aware of that issue, yet the AEI report is strong in its criticism of Wells on this. I don't believe that AEI just "missed" the Wells commentary on this given how thorough their study is...so clearly they know exactly what Wells is saying about the impact of the warm room on the Colts balls and they are adamant that they got it wrong. That's a nerd-fight and despite many readings it's over my head.
To reiterate what I said earlier...I think it's highly likely that we are all right here. I think "the deflator" did something he shouldn't have done pre-game, which is why he lied about what he was doing. I just think that what he was doing was more likely to have been something along the lines of gauging the balls to make sure they were 12.5 (given what apparently happened in that Jets game) and possibly releasing air in balls that read high on his gauge, but not deflating balls below the limit. That would explain the sketchy behavior AND it would explain why the science isn't coming out with any clear cut evidence of deflation. It would also explain Brady being adamant about liking the ball at 12.5...and that would be 12.5 on their gauge, since we now know that gauges themselves have a margin of error (logo gauge being nearly half a pound higher than the other gauge). So If all he did was set the balls to 12.5 on his gauge, then the balls were essentially where they should have been and that's why the readings at halftime don't show any crazy "2 lbs lower!!" measurements like we were originally led to believe.
-
Who got paid for exactly what, I'm not sure if any of this was mentioned.
What I do know is that AEI has been caught trying to bribe "experts" to participate in certain studies in order to come to a desired conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Controversies
"According to the Guardian article, the AEI received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil. The article further notes that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees."
"AEI had sent letters to scientists offering $10,000 plus travel expenses and additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report."
I stand by my earlier statement. Research institutes are always looking for donations and grants, often from highly contentious lobbyists looking to dump some money on "experts" in order to champion their cause.
AEI is a well known conservative group often taking money from conservative lobbyists looking to support conservative platforms. In short; They operate with a political agenda and this is problematic toward their bona fides as objective in regard to any case.
Lol...meanwhile, you fully accept the findings of Exponent, who ARE exactly the "research for hire" firm you claimed AEI was. Exponent, who gave us "Second Hand Smoke doesn't cause cancer!" - paid for by the tobacco companies...and now, "They cheated!!!" - paid for by the NFL.
-
And you know this how?
Do you think Goodell agreed to pay Wells $5M to come back and say "Nothing to see here. Can I have my check now?"
-
"Research Institutes" are akin to expert witnesses in trials. They are paid to find a supporting opinion, period. They are paid liars and trained manipulators of fact. That goes for both the institute that questions the Wells report, as well as the one used by the Wells report.
Everyone here would do well to consider this.
No...no they are not...they are a non-profit organization and they don't do "contract research".
-
They are essentially saying what you're saying: the time at which the Colts balls were measured may have resulted in a different measurement. Their conclusion?
Based on the above conclusions, although the relative “explainability” of the results from Game Day are dependent on which gauge was used by Walt Anderson prior to the game, given the most likely timing of events during halftime, the Patriots halftime measurements do not appear to be explained by the environmental factors tested, regardless of the gauge used
Once again, you can't say things for certain. But given their testing, it doesn't look like the environment (eg. temperature of the room, time it took to measure Colts balls, etc.) doesn't have a significant effect.
I've worked at trying to understand what the AEI report is saying...it's been a long time since I took a statistics class, but I'm starting to get it...
I think the main gist of the flaw AEI is finding is this (trying to put this in English as much as possible):
1) We know there were two gauges, and that that one (non logo) was around .4 psi lower than the other (logo).
2) We don't know what gauge was used to set the balls pregame...if the non-logo gauge was used to set the Pats balls to 12.5, then those balls would read at 12.9 if measured by the logo gauge
3) We DO have halftime readings off of each gauge for 11 Pats balls and 4 Colts balls
4) Predictably, the readings of the balls from the logo gauge are higher than the non-logo gauge
5) So the raw number for how much deflation occurred for each team's balls depends on which gauge was used to set the pre-game starting point
6) Example: Patriots Ball #1 measured 11.5 PSI on the low gauge, and 11.8 on the high gauge...how many PSI the ball actually deflated depends on which gauge we started with. So if the pre-game gauge was the low gauge, then the PSI drop on ball 1 was 1 lb and if it was the high gauge then the drop was only 0.7 PSI.
AEI's first contention is that if you aren't going to accept Anderson's recollection that the high gauge was used, then you have to account for all 4 permutations of pre-game gauge use when doing a comparison of pressure drops between the 2 teams balls...1) high gauge was used for both teams pre-game 2) low gauge was used pre-game for both teams 3) high gauge was used for Pats, Low gauge for Colts 4) Low gauge was used for Pats, high gauge was used for Colts. There's no evidence that this analysis was done by Wells. That's a significant flaw in the data.
So what AEI did was to use Wells' own data to determine whether or not the Pats balls deflated on average by more than the lower range the ideal gas law would predict depending on the various combinations...and what that data shows is that in 3 of the 4 data combinations, the average deflation of the Pats balls was above the lower limit predicted by the ideal gas law (the only combo that showed an average drop below the lower limit was when you assume the high gauge was used to set the pregame 12.5 and you take the low gauge measurement at halftime).
Then they did the same analysis on the Colts balls and found that the change from pre-game to halftime was off the charts higher than the ideal gas law would predict in all 4 permutations of gauge use. That's the halftime warming effect.
I think ultimately he's saying that Wells is trying to use the comparative drops between the 2 teams to deflect from the fact that the raw readings on pressure drop isn't all that conclusive. I.e. "OK so depending on the assumption you choose on which gauge was used pre-game, the ideal gas law may or may not completely explain the halftime measurements...but the gauge assumptions fall apart when you consider that no matter what gauge you use the Pats balls dropped way more as a % than the Colts balls did"...AEI is saying "hold on a sec - the Pats balls fall within the ideal gas law prediction in 3 out of 4 assumptions on gauge use, but the Colts balls are way OVER what the ideal gas law would predict...that's because the Colts balls heated up all halftime"
Wells suggests in the appendix he considered this, but there's no data provided to show HOW he considered it...I think.
. This one takes the 
Deflategate merge -- pending appeal results
in NFL General
Posted
Sorry, but no
The problem here is that ideally, measurements would have been taken simultaneously for all balls, outdoors, at the end of the half, and with the same gauge that was used before the game. Instead, the balls were taken inside and measured there, but not measured simultaneously. The pressure was checked twice for the Patriots balls (once with each gauge), after which the Patriots balls were reinflated and the Colts ball pressure was measured. Only 4 of the Colts balls (instead of all 12) were measured because halftime ended and the officials ran out of time. The fact that the officials ran out of time is highly material: it implies that the Colts balls were inside a warm room for almost the entire halftime before they were measured and thus had a chance to warm up.
I.e. Sequence of events at halftime:
1) Pats balls gauged and logged
2) Pats balls gauged and logged again
3) Pats balls reinflated
4) Colts balls gauged - time runs out after 4