Brady "Sour Grapes"

[Superman]

You might want to reread the rules.

 

Show me.

[ViriLudant]

Know what amuses me?

Nothing has been proven as factual as to how, if at all , the balls became deflated, but all Colt fans know guilt when they see it.

Despite not knowing any of the evidence .

Or do you still buy Mortensen's changed story? You know, the one he pulled and had to edit ?

The NFL has not proven that anything has happened.

Sorry, but that's the absolute fact.

[ViriLudant]

Even Wilson football manufacturer calls BB's science experiment nonsense....

http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/01/deflategate_bill_belichicks_de.html

MIT, the world's most advanced scientific university, has already proven how it is perfectly possible.

[Yehoodi]

Show me.

 

The rule in the NFL Rule book regarding the Ball. 

[Superman]

The rule in the NFL Rule book regarding the Ball. 

 

Nope.

[Yehoodi]

Nope.

 

Ah yes.  The rule sets forth the requirements that must be met by the team supplying the balls.  Pretty straight forward. 

 

It is also provides that any non conformities are to be reported to the Commissioner's office.

[Superman]

Ah yes.  The rule sets forth the requirements that must be met by the team supplying the balls.  Pretty straight forward. 

 

It is also provides that any non conformities are to be reported to the Commissioner's office.

 

That doesn't make it a violation. You're trying hard, but logic is your enemy in this case.

 

The rules don't make it a violation to submit balls that might be out of compliance. The rules require the officials to check the balls for compliance before the game, and make the proper adjustments when necessary. That's why a pump is to be provided.

 

The paragraph talking about balls not meeting specifications being reported to the Commissioner appear to be specific to balls being taken out of play during the game. It's specific to home team balls, and it says that, if necessary, a ball would be taken from the visiting team. That isn't necessary during the pregame testing, because the home team provides 12 backup balls for testing. 

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf

[southwest1]

Did I say that he played with a ball overinflated?  My point was that what he was doing was a violation of the NFL rules.  Not sure what you missed.  It is violation period now matter how you try to spin it.  That is the first point

 

As for the moral compass, is it a violation of providing balls that are within spec, and if not such violation must be reported to the Commissioner.  When one steps back and starts to wonder why so many times does Aaron Rodgers and the Packers provide overinflated balls?   Shouldn't they know the rule book and never do it to start off with in the first place?  Shouldn't they after the first "mistake" realize and say "gee sorry about that ref, thanks for catching that and we will never do it again" and then not do it second time?  And much less more times and be angry instead of being relieved and appreciative that it was corrected?   

 

You and Superman are intelligent fellows, maybe you guys can get together and answer those questions.  And perhaps you might come up with one idea that one reason why they do it is the hope that one, or more, of the balls get through.  It has been reported by "they" that refs will sometimes just do a squeeze test and or the pregame test are not accurate.  Which would mean that that the Packers would be playing with ball out of spec based on a ball inflated by them, which is something you seemed to have a problem with if it happens.

 

And from a moral standpoint, if you can not see what is wrong with someone repeatedly submitting balls out of spec., then I can not help you or Superman. 

 

But regardless of how you want to down play it, the act is a violation of the rules.

 

Also, it will be interesting to see when all of the facts do come out directly from the NFL if the pregame checks may of been off and the NFL concludes that the pats did not alter the balls after they were checked but in actuality handed in balls that were underinflated.  And if so, they would of violated the same rule as what Aaron Rodgers did and I would love to see how much non concern there is regarding what the pats did if those are the facts.  Something tells me that there will be people looking for blood.

Good point Yehoodi. An overinflated football by GB QB Aaron Rogers is a violation of PSI rules & regulations. Fair is fair. 

 

Know what amuses me?

Nothing has been proven as factual as to how, if at all , the balls became deflated, but all Colt fans know guilt when they see it.

Despite not knowing any of the evidence .

Or do you still buy Mortensen's changed story? You know, the one he pulled and had to edit ?

The NFL has not proven that anything has happened.

Sorry, but that's the absolute fact.

True VL. No one has seen the final results of the deflate gate investigation. I just find it odd that the Colts have their footballs tested with no air pressure issues & NE has 11 of 12 footballs that fall to pass inspection with the right amount of pressure in them. Look, if the investigation reveals that the number of deflated footballs was significantly lower than originally anticipated, I will apologize to my NE friends, but if it is confirmed that 11 out 12 balls was under inflated then somebody committed a deliberate act of deception because 11 of 12 balls are not going to uniformly drop air pressure at once that's darn near statistically impossible. I don't care what the temperature drops to in a night game. 

 

The absence of proof does not exonerate a team because it could just mean the findings were inconclusive. I am still rooting for your Patriots to win the SB this weekend though. 

[Bad Morty]

Good point Yehoodi. An overinflated football by GB QB Aaron Rogers is a violation of PSI rules & regulations. Fair is fair. 

 

True VL. No one has seen the final results of the deflate gate investigation. I just find it odd that the Colts have their footballs tested with no air pressure issues & NE has 11 of 12 footballs that fall to pass inspection with the right amount of pressure in them. Look, if the investigation reveals that the number of deflated footballs was significantly lower than originally anticipated, I will apologize to my NE friends, but if it is confirmed that 11 out 12 balls was under inflated then somebody committed a deliberate act of deception because 11 of 12 balls are not going to uniformly drop air pressure at once that's darn near statistically impossible. I don't care what the temperature drops to in a night game. 

 

The absence of proof does not exonerate a team because it could just mean the findings were inconclusive. I am still rooting for your Patriots to win the SB this weekend though. 

We can no longer say the Colts balls had no air pressure issues. Blandino just admitted that there was no beginning air pressure logged. For all I know, that ball boy went into the bathroom, inflated the Colts balls above the limit because Luck likes the balls more inflated like Rogers does, and then they tested in the range at halftime due to the natural deflatiion that happened in the climate.

[bababooey]

We can no longer say the Colts balls had no air pressure issues. Blandino just admitted that there was no beginning air pressure logged. For all I know, that ball boy went into the bathroom, inflated the Colts balls above the limit because Luck likes the balls more inflated like Rogers does, and then they tested in the range at halftime due to the natural deflatiion that happened in the climate.

You could write a book on Patriot fans excuses over the last two weeks.

[Yehoodi]

That doesn't make it a violation. You're trying hard, but logic is your enemy in this case.

 

The rules don't make it a violation to submit balls that might be out of compliance. The rules require the officials to check the balls for compliance before the game, and make the proper adjustments when necessary. That's why a pump is to be provided.

 

The paragraph talking about balls not meeting specifications being reported to the Commissioner appear to be specific to balls being taken out of play during the game. It's specific to home team balls, and it says that, if necessary, a ball would be taken from the visiting team. That isn't necessary during the pregame testing, because the home team provides 12 backup balls for testing. 

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf

 

 

You are over reading the rule and reading too much into the rule.  The rule is very simply and extremely clear in that the teams are required to supply the balls and that such balls must be within the specifications set forth by the rule.  That is what the “shall be” stands for in the rule.   Meaning, the teams are required to provide balls that shall meet X, Y, and Z specs.   At that point nothing needs to be stated in the rule.  Failure to comply with this is a violation, nothing more needs to be stated in the rule.  The rule could stop there and it is sets forth a violation based on the plain language of the rule, you were supposed to do this and you did not.

 

A Speed Limit sign does not have to state, “if you are going over this number you are speeding.”   Similarly when someone is required to do something and they have not done so they have violated that order.

 

Just because the rule does not necessarily have an expressed penalty for such violation does not make a noncompliance with a rule not a violation.   Given our knowledge of the situation the only “penalty” in the rule is the fact that the NFL will bring your balls within the specs, but that does not change the act committed prior to the ball’s presentation for inspection.

 

The fact that there is no expressed penalty also underscores, imo, the seriousness, or lack thereof, the NFL considers the inflation of the balls, meaning it does not mean a great deal in the grand scheme.  It is also fortifies the reason why Aaron Rodgers very likely keeps submitting overinflated balls in the hopes that some go through, after all from a cost benefits analysis, if all the harm can be done is the ref deflates the ball what is the harm to the team in submitting overinflated balls.

 

As for your point regarding the Section 2, I do not see where you are reading into the rule that it only references balls that are in the play of the game.  This section, in the first paragraph, talks about the process of the teams presenting the balls for inspection, and the second paragraphs references what will be done with the balls if a ball in not incompliance with the rules.  We also must remember that the inflation of a ball is just one of the specs that needs to be met by the team and there are others: size, corrugations, covering, and so on; any one of which might be violated but cannot be corrected with a pump, so there needs to be a mechanism to deal with a ball that fails inspection outside of inflation reasons, and that is set forth in the rule.

 

Now with the present firestorm the NFL might imposed a stiffer penalty for team who violate the rule, and if they do they are not going to need the any language stating “any violation of this rule is a violation of the rule” as it is set evident.  The NFL will merely add “A team that submits a ball that is not in compliance of the rule will be subject to x, y and z penalty.”  The NFL does not have to preface it as it being a violation.

 

Again all of the above can be summed up in my earlier post #317.