Boston's sports media are off their rockers!

[The Old Crow]

Air football pressure and betting on the sport are not even remotely on the same planet.

But taping, combined with other things could be.

[Bad Morty]

According to BB , his 2 QB's could only tell the difference 50% of the time with a ball deflated by 2 LB's per square inch. Plus factor in that they knew that they were doing a "testing of the football " type thing. Not that I really believe that Tom Brady could be handed a football that was that deflated and be asked if it felt deflated and only be right 50% of the time. That I think is a blatant lie . But I can believe him when he said in game conditions , he wouldn't notice it. That's a far more believable statement. So the point is , he (Virdulant) believes Brady and BB ... that they can't tell the difference when they are LOOKING FOR DEFLATION , but a LB that caught a ball and carried it off the field would know if it was deflated. From there he went on to the conspiracy theory. To his credit , he has now backed off that statement  and I respect that.

 

What I'm saying is that the initial story very specifically put out a narrative that said that Jackson picked off the ball, noticed it felt deflated, and handed it to the equipment guy to check it out...i.e Jackson was the one who initiated this whole thing. Then Jackson immediately distanced himself from it, saying he didn't notice anything and just wanted to keep the ball as a souvenir. That's a significantly different account and makes me wonder who passed along the first story...because it's apparently a complete fabrication.

[dw49]

What I'm saying is that the initial story very specifically put out a narrative that said that Jackson picked off the ball, noticed it felt deflated, and handed it to the equipment guy to check it out...i.e Jackson was the one who initiated this whole thing. Then Jackson immediately distanced himself from it, saying he didn't notice anything and just wanted to keep the ball as a souvenir. That's a significantly different account and makes me wonder who passed along the first story...because it's apparently a complete fabrication.

 

 

Dunno who said it was Jackson and not the ball boy. Dunno who said it was initiated by the Ravens from the week before.... that was circulated also. I  don't think there's a lot of significance as to someone saying it was Jackson and not the ball boy. I just don't think it's a big deal that when he was asked about it the next day , he just said heck no .. I didn't notice anything. Do you think maybe there was a big conspiracy that the whole Colt tea knew about and Jackson "chickened out" when he was asks the next day ? I would think that it's a very easy thing to report wrong or get confused about. He's a defensive guy that made an int and handed the ball to the ball boy to keep for him. He didn't notice the deflation as he caught a "bounced around" int and carried it to the sideline. If Tom Brady and your center were handling that ball on every play and didn't notice it , why would Jackson , who like he said is a defensive player. So nothing there .. right ? Now we have a guy that reported it was Jackson instead of the ball boy. It appears to me that that was incorrect. Now what ? Big deal ? I don't see the big deal .. but if I'm missing something .. I'm all ears.

[JlynRN]

In my opinion, the only people believing this "conspiracy" that the Colts intentionally deflated that 1 football that Jackson intercpted are pats fans and NE journalists.  Just trying to deflect the attention away from their team and the things they have done in the past.  The Colts had concerns about the footballs going back to the November game, so they had every right to question the balls in the AFCCG.  Were there questions in the Ravens-Pats game?  Who knows, none of the balls were tested, I'm sure.

[Bad Morty]

Dunno who said it was Jackson and not the ball boy. Dunno who said it was initiated by the Ravens from the week before.... that was circulated also. I  don't think there's a lot of significance as to someone saying it was Jackson and not the ball boy. I just don't think it's a big deal that when he was asked about it the next day , he just said heck no .. I didn't notice anything. Do you think maybe there was a big conspiracy that the whole Colt tea knew about and Jackson "chickened out" when he was asks the next day ? I would think that it's a very easy thing to report wrong or get confused about. He's a defensive guy that made an int and handed the ball to the ball boy to keep for him. He didn't notice the deflation as he caught a "bounced around" int and carried it to the sideline. If Tom Brady and your center were handling that ball on every play and didn't notice it , why would Jackson , who like he said is a defensive player. So nothing there .. right ? Now we have a guy that reported it was Jackson instead of the ball boy. It appears to me that that was incorrect. Now what ? Big deal ? I don't see the big deal .. but if I'm missing something .. I'm all ears.

 

This long ago left the "real news" world for me and entered into "fun conspiracy theory" mode. For all anybody knows, nobody did anything wrong and there was a defective ball that leaked. So with that context, everything I'm saying is pure amateur detective stuff. Here are the only things I think are facts:

 

1) The Colts turned in the Jackson ball because someone on the Colts sideline thought it was under inflated

2) The balls were measured at half-time and at least some of the Patriots balls were under the minimum by some amount, maybe a lot, maybe a little

3) The air pressure of the balls at the beginning of the game was not noted

 

 

Everything else is rumor, right?

 

So my curiosity starts with the original story, which had details in it which have since been contradicted, either by direct comments from Jackson or by different (but still unconfirmed) reports. That original story was provided to a local Indy reporter, and it clearly painted the worst case scenario for the Patriots, with 11 out of 12 balls being 2 psi too low and Jackson being the one to notice the balls were too low.

 

It seems logical to me, given the detailed story about Jackson and that Kravitz was the reporter, that the source of this story was someone from the Colts. Do you agree? So we have an extremely negative story about the Pats, provided by somebody from the Colts. Since that story came out, Jackson himself has refuted a part of it, and newer reports seem to pretty significantly contradict the amount the balls were underinflated. So now we have not just a story provided by the Colts, but an at least partly made up story. If someone inside the Colts was * off enough about the Pats to plant a partly fabricated story into the news about them, how big a stretch is it to then think they may have gone a step further than simply making up a story and may have actually tampered with the ball to support that story?

[bababooey]

This long ago left the "real news" world for me and entered into "fun conspiracy theory" mode. For all anybody knows, nobody did anything wrong and there was a defective ball that leaked. So with that context, everything I'm saying is pure amateur detective stuff. Here are the only things I think are facts:

1) The Colts turned in the Jackson ball because someone on the Colts sideline thought it was under inflated

2) The balls were measured at half-time and at least some of the Patriots balls were under the minimum by some amount, maybe a lot, maybe a little

3) The air pressure of the balls at the beginning of the game was not noted

Everything else is rumor, right?

So my curiosity starts with the original story, which had details in it which have since been contradicted, either by direct comments from Jackson or by different (but still unconfirmed) reports. That original story was provided to a local Indy reporter, and it clearly painted the worst case scenario for the Patriots, with 11 out of 12 balls being 2 psi too low and Jackson being the one to notice the balls were too low.

It seems logical to me, given the detailed story about Jackson and that Kravitz was the reporter, that the source of this story was someone from the Colts. Do you agree? So we have an extremely negative story about the Pats, provided by somebody from the Colts. Since that story came out, Jackson himself has refuted a part of it, and newer reports seem to pretty significantly contradict the amount the balls were underinflated. So now we have not just a story provided by the Colts, but an at least partly made up story. If someone inside the Colts was * off enough about the Pats to plant a partly fabricated story into the news about them, how big a stretch is it to then think they may have gone a step further than simply making up a story and may have actually tampered with the ball to support that story?

Christ, give it a rest and go to bed. You just won the SB and you're on an opponents forum at 11:30 pm on a saturday trying to convince people who hate your team that you are the victims and our team is the bad guys. You don't see us on your forums wasting our breath.

[dw49]

This long ago left the "real news" world for me and entered into "fun conspiracy theory" mode. For all anybody knows, nobody did anything wrong and there was a defective ball that leaked. So with that context, everything I'm saying is pure amateur detective stuff. Here are the only things I think are facts:

 

1) The Colts turned in the Jackson ball because someone on the Colts sideline thought it was under inflated

2) The balls were measured at half-time and at least some of the Patriots balls were under the minimum by some amount, maybe a lot, maybe a little

3) The air pressure of the balls at the beginning of the game was not noted

 

 

Everything else is rumor, right?

 

So my curiosity starts with the original story, which had details in it which have since been contradicted, either by direct comments from Jackson or by different (but still unconfirmed) reports. That original story was provided to a local Indy reporter, and it clearly painted the worst case scenario for the Patriots, with 11 out of 12 balls being 2 psi too low and Jackson being the one to notice the balls were too low.

 

It seems logical to me, given the detailed story about Jackson and that Kravitz was the reporter, that the source of this story was someone from the Colts. Do you agree? So we have an extremely negative story about the Pats, provided by somebody from the Colts. Since that story came out, Jackson himself has refuted a part of it, and newer reports seem to pretty significantly contradict the amount the balls were underinflated. So now we have not just a story provided by the Colts, but an at least partly made up story. If someone inside the Colts was * off enough about the Pats to plant a partly fabricated story into the news about them, how big a stretch is it to then think they may have gone a step further than simply making up a story and may have actually tampered with the ball to support that story?

 

 

To my knowledge all that Kravitz did was break the story that it was being investigated. i "think" not positive... that he only quoted other sources from then on. All the "negative " stuff you talk about was reported by "whom ?"  I think you need to check this out a bit . Your saying "they" made up the story and "they " doctored the football ? To be perfectly honest , what you have makes zero sense but maybe I'm just missing something.

[BringDungyBack]

The thing is we just don't know. They probably cheated though, and if those balls were under-inflated, the colts definitely didn't do anything let's be realistic. It just upsets me that our players keep getting arrested, and that is what hurts our credibility. We have a guy beating up a pizza man, we have a drug addicted owner(why can't he be like Kraft), it's just annoying

[amfootball]

But taping, combined with other things could be.

You are really reaching here. The taping the Pats did for their championships was legal those years. The camera location only became illegal in 2006 with Roger's memo. And then on top of that the Pats have won more games and been to as many Super Bowls post spygate as pre spygate. So whatever advantage was gained did not effect their march toward greatness culminating with their 4th ring on Sunday.

 

Until something is proved with ball tampering it is a non-story. And even then it is game operations violation with a $25k fine.

 

None of this will effect the hall or anything else.

 

Question for you - I was discussing with my brother during the Super Bowl the baseball players that are currently not in the hall for steroids. What is your take on them? Do you think they should eventually get in or not? If they do get in should they be somehow designated for the era they played in? My feeling is I think you have to let them in eventually. You can't keep a whole generation out but not sure it will happen.

[Nadine]

This long ago left the "real news" world for me and entered into "fun conspiracy theory" mode. For all anybody knows, nobody did anything wrong and there was a defective ball that leaked. So with that context, everything I'm saying is pure amateur detective stuff. Here are the only things I think are facts:

 

1) The Colts turned in the Jackson ball because someone on the Colts sideline thought it was under inflated

2) The balls were measured at half-time and at least some of the Patriots balls were under the minimum by some amount, maybe a lot, maybe a little

3) The air pressure of the balls at the beginning of the game was not noted

 

 

Everything else is rumor, right?

 

So my curiosity starts with the original story, which had details in it which have since been contradicted, either by direct comments from Jackson or by different (but still unconfirmed) reports. That original story was provided to a local Indy reporter, and it clearly painted the worst case scenario for the Patriots, with 11 out of 12 balls being 2 psi too low and Jackson being the one to notice the balls were too low.

 

It seems logical to me, given the detailed story about Jackson and that Kravitz was the reporter, that the source of this story was someone from the Colts. Do you agree? So we have an extremely negative story about the Pats, provided by somebody from the Colts. Since that story came out, Jackson himself has refuted a part of it, and newer reports seem to pretty significantly contradict the amount the balls were underinflated. So now we have not just a story provided by the Colts, but an at least partly made up story. If someone inside the Colts was * off enough about the Pats to plant a partly fabricated story into the news about them, how big a stretch is it to then think they may have gone a step further than simply making up a story and may have actually tampered with the ball to support that story?

As long as we're making stuff up we could also say that somebody behind the scenes is leaking sound bytes to change the narrative in order to divert blame from the patriots? See what I'm saying?  It's a tangled mass of rumor and innuendo right now

 

Perhaps a media conspiracy to have something to talk about in the off season.

 

We all have to wait and see and can fight about it after the report comes out

[thomas144]

The thing that angers Pats fans is that no matter what the results of the investigation most people outside of New England will think they are liars and cheats.

Edited February 8, 2015 by 21isSuperman

[Ant Ave]

Christ, give it a rest and go to bed. You just won the SB and you're on an opponents forum at 11:30 pm on a saturday trying to convince people who hate your team that you are the victims and our team is the bad guys. You don't see us on your forums wasting our breath.

Actually there are intelligent Colts fans voicing their opinions and sharing their perceptions on some of the Pats sights I fequent . It's one of the reasons I was curious as to what Indy fans are thinking here .

[Bad Morty]

Here's what happened:

 

The Colts had suspected the Pats of deflating balls prior to the AFC Championship Game. We've read this. So they came into the game wanting to catch the Pats red-handed at it. The only way to do that would be to get the refs to agree to measure the balls at halftime. From everything I've read/heard, this is not something that is normally done (re-gauging balls at the half). So that means the only way this would get done would be if one of the teams requested it be done, and we know that that in fact happened (Griggson made the request). So here's to me the key thing...would the refs agree to test all the balls without there being any probable cause to do so? In other words, if there had been no Jackson interception and the Colts had never gotten their hands on a ball, would the refs agree to do this test simply because Griggson "had a suspicion"? I highly doubt it...which is why that one ball is so significant here. I think the Colts got that ball and saw an opportunity to get an investigation done that they believed would nail the Patriots. So I could totally see them popping a needle into it, taking it down to an obvious level of deflation, handing it to the refs and saying "look - this ball is clearly deflated...we want an investigation done". The false story that was put out there about Jackson noticing the deflation as soon as he picked it off is important, because it establishes that the ball was in that state of deflation before the Colts got it (i.e. the Pats were the ones who deflated that ball). This is a completely plausible theory that fits the facts we know to be out there.

[Cynjin]

Here's what happened:

 

The Colts had suspected the Pats of deflating balls prior to the AFC Championship Game. We've read this. So they came into the game wanting to catch the Pats red-handed at it. The only way to do that would be to get the refs to agree to measure the balls at halftime. From everything I've read/heard, this is not something that is normally done (re-gauging balls at the half). So that means the only way this would get done would be if one of the teams requested it be done, and we know that that in fact happened (Griggson made the request). So here's to me the key thing...would the refs agree to test all the balls without there being any probable cause to do so? In other words, if there had been no Jackson interception and the Colts had never gotten their hands on a ball, would the refs agree to do this test simply because Griggson "had a suspicion"? I highly doubt it...which is why that one ball is so significant here. I think the Colts got that ball and saw an opportunity to get an investigation done that they believed would nail the Patriots. So I could totally see them popping a needle into it, taking it down to an obvious level of deflation, handing it to the refs and saying "look - this ball is clearly deflated...we want an investigation done". The false story that was put out there about Jackson noticing the deflation as soon as he picked it off is important, because it establishes that the ball was in that state of deflation before the Colts got it (i.e. the Pats were the ones who deflated that ball). This is a completely plausible theory that fits the facts we know to be out there.

And the hypocrisy of this Pats fan, oh I'm sorry "Colts Fan", continues. More than likely without any recognition of the hypocrisy by the above poster.

[Bad Morty]

And the hypocrisy of this Pats fan, oh I'm sorry "Colts Fan", continues. More than likely without any recognition of the hypocrisy by the above poster.

 

I just like a who dunnit mystery . By the way - how am I hypocritical? I'm like a lot of people just trying to guess at what might have happened based on what we know. I may be one of the only objective people here in that I completely accept the possibility that the Pats may have done something sneaky here. For a long time, before the Rappaport story came out, I believed that the Pats had figured out some sneaky way to pump hot air into the balls or to fill them in a sauna or something so that they'd pass the pregame check and then deflate once they hit the outside. Colts fans seem to be the only ones here who believe that it is not even conceivable that their guys might have been involved in something underhanded.

[Cynjin]

I just like a who dunnit mystery . By the way - how am I hypocritical? I'm like a lot of people just trying to guess at what might have happened based on what we know. I may be one of the only objective people here in that I completely accept the possibility that the Pats may have done something sneaky here. For a long time, before the Rappaport story came out, I believed that the Pats had figured out some sneaky way to pump hot air into the balls or to fill them in a sauna or something so that they'd pass the pregame check and then deflate once they hit the outside. Colts fans seem to be the only ones here who believe that it is not even conceivable that their guys might have been involved in something underhanded.

I'm not surprised that you do not recognize the hypocrisy, but then again you try to tell others that you are a Colts fan. I will wait until I see the Wells report now that I have seen conflicting information from Mortensen and Rappaport.

[Bad Morty]

I'm not surprised that you do not recognize the hypocrisy, but then again you try to tell others that you are a Colts fan. I will wait until I see the Wells report now that I have seen conflicting information from Mortensen and Rappaport.

 

Again - what do you see as hypocritical? I am open to any of the 3 possibilities:

 

1) The Pats did something wrong

2) The Colts did something wrong

3) Nobody did anything wrong

 

I would venture to say there is not a Colts fan here who is truly open to scenario #2 or #3. But I will say this - if the Rappaport report turns out to be the accurate one, then as far as I'm concerned door #2 immediately becomes the MOST likely scenario.

[Cynjin]

Again - what do you see as hypocritical? I am open to any of the 3 possibilities:

 

1) The Pats did something wrong

2) The Colts did something wrong

3) Nobody did anything wrong

 

I would venture to say there is not a Colts fan here who is truly open to scenario #2 or #3. But I will say this - if the Rappaport report turns out to be the accurate one, then as far as I'm concerned door #2 immediately becomes the MOST likely scenario.

The hypocrisy comes from your posts on the initial reports on Deflategate, which implicated the Pats vs your posts since the Rappaport information came out. Also, at no time do I believe that choice number 1 was a possibility to you.

[Bad Morty]

The hypocrisy comes from your posts on the initial reports on Deflategate, which implicated the Pats vs your posts since the Rappaport information came out. Also, at no time do I believe that choice number 1 was a possibility to you.

 

You'll have to take my word on that. My first reaction to the Mortensen report was to believe they were guilty. I'm actually embarrassed of that now, but that's what it looked like initially. I remember at the very outset, before Mort's report, thinking that the story about a defensive player supposedly being able to tell that a ball was slightly deflated didn't pass the sniff test, but then when Mort's report said 11 of 12 balls were 2lbs deflated each, I dropped that and started believing they were guilty. I'm still not comfortable with the guy taking the balls into the bathroom either...that's not a good look no matter what he was doing. But we're now down to 1 of 2 potential stories here the way I look at it...

 

1) The Mort report was correct and 11 of 12 Pats balls were significantly deflated. If that's the case, my money would be on the Pats doing something wrong.

 

2) The Rappaport report is correct and only 1 ball was significantly under inflated, that ball being the one that Jackson picked off.

 

If story #2 is correct, do you not think that shifts suspicion to the Colts? How would only one ball get deflated, that ball being the one that was in possession of the team that demanded the balls be checked?

[Jason_]

You are really reaching here. The taping the Pats did for their championships was legal those years. The camera location only became illegal in 2006 with Roger's memo.

 

Umm....what?  This is the first I've heard of anything like that.  Everything I've read and heard about the spygate incident had nothing to do with the location of the camera, but rather with the use of the camera. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/sports/football/14patriots.html?_r=0

 

 

N.F.L. policy prohibits videotaping opposing coaches giving signals.

[amfootball]

Umm....what?  This is the first I've heard of anything like that.  Everything I've read and heard about the spygate incident had nothing to do with the location of the camera, but rather with the use of the camera. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/sports/football/14patriots.html?_r=0

It was the location of the camera on the sideline. Goodell sent a memo in Sept. 2006 saying teams could no longer have cameras on the sideline. It was sent to all 32 teams as it was widely done in the league. Bill continue to videotape as he thought as long as the videos were not used in game then it was fine to still do it.

Here is a pretty good summation of it, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

[Jason_]

It was the location of the camera on the sideline. Goodell sent a memo in Sept. 2006 saying teams could no longer have cameras on the sideline. It was sent to all 32 teams as it was widely done in the league. Bill continue to videotape as he thought as long as the videos were not used in game then it was fine to still do it.

Here is a pretty good summation of it, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

 

Ah, well if a bleacherreport writer who has only written 3 articles (all related to the Patriots) says so then...

 

the Pats were not punished for setting up a camera in the wrong location...they were punished for recording opposing teams' coaching signals. 

[-JJ-]

Actually the rule reads:

Article IX of the NFL Constitution and By-laws

 

“Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”

 

The memo which conflicts with the rule reads:

“Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.”

 

Bill went by the rule which can only be amended by the rules comm.

 

 The question is not so much where the camera was but the taping can not be used for use during the game being played.

This states that the use of any sort of taped information is illegal for use during the game THAT day.  Belichick argued that his filming was never used for THAT day (which was later corroborated by the video tech and Goodell).

[amfootball]

Ah, well if a bleacherreport writer who has only written 3 articles (all related to the Patriots) says so then...

 

the Pats were not punished for setting up a camera in the wrong location...they were punished for recording opposing teams' coaching signals. 

There are many, many articles that echo the same thing. I pulled that one because it is the most comprehensive. See JJ's post just above mine for further clarification on the rules.

[Jason_]

There are many, many articles that echo the same thing. I pulled that one because it is the most comprehensive. See JJ's post just above mine for further clarification on the rules.

You mean the post where JJ says it wasn't about the location of the camera? ;)

[amfootball]

You mean the post where JJ says it wasn't about the location of the camera? ;)

Right. JJ was talking about Bill's interpretation according to the rules that said as long as footage was not used in game then it was fine. That was Bill's defense in this whole thing and why he admitted to taping since 2000 since it was not against the rules to do so as long as the footage was not used in game. Goodell's memo talked about the location of the cameras which was the amendment. So by Goodells' memo the Pats violated his rule about camera location.

[Jason_]

Right. JJ was talking about Bill's interpretation according to the rules that said as long as footage was not used in game then it was fine. That was Bill's defense in this whole thing and why he admitted to taping since 2000 since it was not against the rules to do so as long as the footage was not used in game. Goodell's memo talked about the location of the cameras which was the amendment. So by Goodells' memo the Pats violated his rule about camera location.

 

$500K fine for Bill and loss of a first round pick seems awfully steep for setting up a camera in the wrong location.

[Bad Morty]

$500K fine for Bill and loss of a first round pick seems awfully steep for setting up a camera in the wrong location.

I agree...no other team in the league would have received that steep a punishment. There is a clear league agenda against the Pats.

[Jason_]

I agree...no other team in the league would have received that steep a punishment. There is a clear league agenda against the Pats.

 

lol....of course there is

[dw49]

You'll have to take my word on that. My first reaction to the Mortensen report was to believe they were guilty. I'm actually embarrassed of that now, but that's what it looked like initially. I remember at the very outset, before Mort's report, thinking that the story about a defensive player supposedly being able to tell that a ball was slightly deflated didn't pass the sniff test, but then when Mort's report said 11 of 12 balls were 2lbs deflated each, I dropped that and started believing they were guilty. I'm still not comfortable with the guy taking the balls into the bathroom either...that's not a good look no matter what he was doing. But we're now down to 1 of 2 potential stories here the way I look at it...

 

1) The Mort report was correct and 11 of 12 Pats balls were significantly deflated. If that's the case, my money would be on the Pats doing something wrong.

 

2) The Rappaport report is correct and only 1 ball was significantly under inflated, that ball being the one that Jackson picked off.

 

If story #2 is correct, do you not think that shifts suspicion to the Colts? How would only one ball get deflated, that ball being the one that was in possession of the team that demanded the balls be checked?

 

 

Here's what really insane about your logic. Who on the Colts would be such a complete , scathing , insane dumbo that would think for a minute what you have would fly.

 

1) They would need the turnover to get the ball. So already this grand plan is a little flawed.

 

2) Which genius would think they could take a ball that was in their possession , deflate it .....hand to to an official and subsequently frame the Pats ? That is absolutely insane . Use that thing between your ears and think it through. Are you even sure they took the ball that was in the Colts possession ? And are you sure that's exactly what Rapoport said ? I didn't listen to his verbal explanation but I did read what he wrote. I didn't see where he said only one ball was deflated. I saw where he said "many were a tick under." I've heard others say that the ones that weren't a tick under were at most around a pound under. I also didm' see where it said it was the Colt ball that was albs under. hears others say it. I mean could be it was their ball but what your saying is that some * thought they would pull this out of their butt , deflate the ball they int'd and present it as evidence that the Pats deflated footballs. Not even a 3rd grader would think that would fly...

[-JJ-]

lol....of course there is

yeah- Bill basically thumbed his nose at the memo/goodell and went by he rule hence the large punishment.

 

Strange thing is does a memo have the same power as a rule?  Its not like the commish can make things up on the fly.

If they need to amend the rule they'd have to wait till it's taken up.

 

To me the rule has one big word that is debatable. The word "a" game should have been the word "the" game being played. Or if the intent was no taping of signals at all then including to be used later. It's messed up by implying not for use of  the game being played.

 

win some lose some.......

[Bad Morty]

Here's what really insane about your logic. Who on the Colts would be such a complete , scathing , insane dumbo that would think for a minute what you have would fly.

 

1) They would need the turnover to get the ball. So already this grand plan is a little flawed.

 

2) Which genius would think they could take a ball that was in their possession , deflate it .....hand to to an official and subsequently frame the Pats ? That is absolutely insane . Use that thing between your ears and think it through. Are you even sure they took the ball that was in the Colts possession ? And are you sure that's exactly what Rapoport said ? I didn't listen to his verbal explanation but I did read what he wrote. I didn't see where he said only one ball was deflated. I saw where he said "many were a tick under." I've heard others say that the ones that weren't a tick under were at most around a pound under. I also didm' see where it said it was the Colt ball that was albs under. hears others say it. I mean could be it was their ball but what your saying is that some * thought they would pull this out of their butt , deflate the ball they int'd and present it as evidence that the Pats deflated footballs. Not even a 3rd grader would think that would fly...

So these are all good questions. Again - the premise is that there is only 1 ball that is deflated beyond what "science" might explain (which may or may not be the case). Who would be dumb enough to take the air out of the ball on the Colts' side? No idea. Who would be dumb enough to deflate one out of 12 balls on the Pats' side? What would be gained by that? But if there's only one ball that looks artificially deflated, then it's fair to ask who did it and why, isn't it? And I can't come up with a single plausible theory as to why the Pats would deflate just one ball. I CAN come up with that scenario for the Colts, particularly in light of the fact that the Colts were concerned about the Pats deflating balls from prior to the game. But you'd have to have the objective ability to view the Colts as just another pro-sports team that is ready and willing to get dirty like all the other teams in order to see it. I get the sense that a lot of Colts fans view this team and organization in a weird light, as though they were a shining beacon of light, fighting for truth and justice in the otherwise dirty world of big money pro sports.

[dw49]

So these are all good questions. Again - the premise is that there is only 1 ball that is deflated beyond what "science" might explain (which may or may not be the case). Who would be dumb enough to take the air out of the ball on the Colts' side? No idea. Who would be dumb enough to deflate one out of 12 balls on the Pats' side? What would be gained by that? But if there's only one ball that looks artificially deflated, then it's fair to ask who did it and why, isn't it? And I can't come up with a single plausible theory as to why the Pats would deflate just one ball. I CAN come up with that scenario for the Colts, particularly in light of the fact that the Colts were concerned about the Pats deflating balls from prior to the game. But you'd have to have the objective ability to view the Colts as just another pro-sports team that is ready and willing to get dirty like all the other teams in order to see it. I get the sense that a lot of Colts fans view this team and organization in a weird light, as though they were a shining beacon of light, fighting for truth and justice in the otherwise dirty world of big money pro sports.

 

 

You are assuming a ton of things that have not been said.

 

 No one has said it appears that just one ball looks to be "artificially deflated." Let's remember that all the Pats balls were under and all the Colt balls tested legal. We need to see what these balls tested at and also need reasonable science as to what would be "normal." They for all we know could come up with something like it's probable that the Pats used a higher temperature air inflating these balls with the knowledge they would deflate more. They could ask what in Gods name they were doing to those balls to raise the PSI a pound as BB explained. Other words it's possible the Pats could have done things they knew would end up in an under deflated ball once they hit the outside air .. rather than using a pin to take air out. Would this be illegal .. I would say so but maybe others would disagree. It could be that they find just one ball deflated badly and the rest not so bad. How did it get that way ? IMO , I don't think the Pats would deflate just 1 ball and hope that was the one that ended up in play. Nor do I think the Colts would do as you suggest ? Makes zero  sense as they would have to figure that it would be the only ball that was illegal and it was on their sideline. So it makes little sense that either side would deflate 1 football. More than likely a defective ball . Maybe the process that BB explained where the team is kicking the crap out of the balls where he makes it sound like they're ready to explode damaged a ball. Who knows.... I mean to say that the Colts took a ball they intercepted .. took air out and gave to an official and said "look at these cheaters" is 3rd grade stuff. A * would know that's not going to fly in the end.

[Bad Morty]

You are assuming a ton of things that have not been said.

 

 No one has said it appears that just one ball looks to be "artificially deflated." Let's remember that all the Pats balls were under and all the Colt balls tested legal. We need to see what these balls tested at and also need reasonable science as to what would be "normal." They for all we know could come up with something like it's probable that the Pats used a higher temperature air inflating these balls with the knowledge they would deflate more. They could ask what in Gods name they were doing to those balls to raise the PSI a pound as BB explained. Other words it's possible the Pats could have done things they knew would end up in an under deflated ball once they hit the outside air .. rather than using a pin to take air out. Would this be illegal .. I would say so but maybe others would disagree. It could be that they find just one ball deflated badly and the rest not so bad. How did it get that way ? IMO , I don't think the Pats would deflate just 1 ball and hope that was the one that ended up in play. Nor do I think the Colts would do as you suggest ? Makes zero  sense as they would have to figure that it would be the only ball that was illegal and it was on their sideline. So it makes little sense that either side would deflate 1 football. More than likely a defective ball . Maybe the process that BB explained where the team is kicking the crap out of the balls where he makes it sound like they're ready to explode damaged a ball. Who knows.... I mean to say that the Colts took a ball they intercepted .. took air out and gave to an official and said "look at these cheaters" is 3rd grade stuff. A * would know that's not going to fly in the end.

I'm obviously guessing based on different reports we've heard about the state of the balls. That's all anyone CAN do. As I said above, one of my first thoughts when the Mort report came out (11 out of 12 balls, all around 2 PSI low) was that they had found a way to do something to the balls pre-game such that they would test legal, then deflate. That completely fits Bill's M.O. as there is no specific rule against it. If you read the rules, all it says is that the balls need to be in that range when the refs check them pre-game and then nobody can tamper with them. I thought and still think that it is highly unlikely that they would do something as risky and flagrantly illegal as sticking a pin into the balls after the refs had checked them. They don't do it that way...they look for angles and interpretations of the rule-book.

 

But on the theory that the Colts did it, here is what I'll say...if they were so convinced that the Pats were deflating the balls, then to me it's possible that somebody might have thought that the ball they turned in would just be one of 12 balls that were all very deflated. So if a Colts guy took a little extra out in order to be sure the refs would do an investigation, he maybe thought that ball would test at around the same level as all of the balls, taking the suspicion off the Colts. If not, they could always fall back on the "one defective ball" theory.

[ViriLudant]

$500K fine for Bill and loss of a first round pick seems awfully steep for setting up a camera in the wrong location.

The fine was for ignoring the new commish. Goodell was putting his foot down. It was never about the severity.

If you think otherwise , clearly you've been ignoring his actions over the past 8 years.

[dw49]

I'm obviously guessing based on different reports we've heard about the state of the balls. That's all anyone CAN do. As I said above, one of my first thoughts when the Mort report came out (11 out of 12 balls, all around 2 PSI low) was that they had found a way to do something to the balls pre-game such that they would test legal, then deflate. That completely fits Bill's M.O. as there is no specific rule against it. If you read the rules, all it says is that the balls need to be in that range when the refs check them pre-game and then nobody can tamper with them. I thought and still think that it is highly unlikely that they would do something as risky and flagrantly illegal as sticking a pin into the balls after the refs had checked them. They don't do it that way...they look for angles and interpretations of the rule-book.

 

But on the theory that the Colts did it, here is what I'll say...if they were so convinced that the Pats were deflating the balls, then to me it's possible that somebody might have thought that the ball they turned in would just be one of 12 balls that were all very deflated. So if a Colts guy took a little extra out in order to be sure the refs would do an investigation, he maybe thought that ball would test at around the same level as all of the balls, taking the suspicion off the Colts. If not, they could always fall back on the "one defective ball" theory.

 

 

If they thought it would "test like the rest of the balls " then why bother ? Furthermore if they thought the other balls would test at aground  2 Lbs under as you infer , why in Gods name would they take 2Lbs of pressure out of that ball. Wouldn't that put it at around 4 LBs PSI under. Or are you saying that the Colts took the PSI of that ball and then stuck the pin in ? If they saw that this ball was legal or just a tick under .. why would they think the rest would test 2 LBS under as you have above ? As for the "one defective ball " theory ... it's just insane that anyone could think they could hand a ball in from their sideline and screw the other team with it.

 

Tell me how it's not a lot different than this. Pirates are playing the Cubs in the Sammy Sosa era. They hate the Cubs and either believe that he's using corked bats or hate the team so much they would d anything to get them in trouble . Sosa gets jammed and his bat breaks at the handle. He's left holding the handle .. about 4 inches of the bat , while the rest of it stays in tact and flys into the Pirate dugout. They later turn that bat in and it's found to be corked. Yeah... now what ? It's just plain ridiculous . You really need to stop listening to those *s on the Boston radio airways...

[Jason_]

The fine was for ignoring the new commish. Goodell was putting his foot down. It was never about the severity.

If you think otherwise , clearly you've been ignoring his actions over the past 8 years.

The most severe punishment handed down by a commission (at least in terms of bills fine) was never about the severity of the offense. Got it. ;)

[Bad Morty]

If they thought it would "test like the rest of the balls " then why bother ?

 

Testing balls at half-time is not standard practice. I don't think the refs do it just because the Colts say "hey - we suspect they are deflating their balls...check them". But I think if they go to the refs and say "look at this ball...it's clearly deflated...we want you to check the rest of their balls"...now you have reason to do it. That was my whole point...the only way they could get the refs to agree to do this test would be to give them evidence to back up your claim.

[dw49]

Testing balls at half-time is not standard practice. I don't think the refs do it just because the Colts say "hey - we suspect they are deflating their balls...check them". But I think if they go to the refs and say "look at this ball...it's clearly deflated...we want you to check the rest of their balls"...now you have reason to do it. That was my whole point...the only way they could get the refs to agree to do this test would be to give them evidence to back up your claim.

 

To my knowledge , the refs never tested any balls until half time. According to both Brady and BB , its very ,very hard to tell the difference in a ball 2 lbs under just by feeling it. So I'm wondering why that ball would make them test at half time  ? I mean I guess they (Colts ) could say they tested it ? I suppose but you have just a plethora of suppositions without any facts backing that theory up. Furthermore I would guess that if a team felt the other team was using doctored footballs , they would test at halftime. Wasn't one report saying the Colts alerted the league of this possible problem before the game and the plan was to test balls if the Colts felt it was happening ? I don't know ... many reports and silly to jump to crazy conclusions. I'm done on this and will finish by saying you will be very disappointed if you think they are going to come t the conclusion the Colts doctored a ball. I feel that pretty much nothing will come out but would be shocked if that fairy tale weaved in Boston proves true.

[-JJ-]

To my knowledge , the refs never tested any balls until half time. According to both Brady and BB , its very ,very hard to tell the difference in a ball 2 lbs under just by feeling it. So I'm wondering why that ball would make them test at half time  ? I mean I guess they (Colts ) could say they tested it ? I suppose but you have just a plethora of suppositions without any facts backing that theory up. Furthermore I would guess that if a team felt the other team was using doctored footballs , they would test at halftime. Wasn't one report saying the Colts alerted the league of this possible problem before the game and the plan was to test balls if the Colts felt it was happening ? I don't know ... many reports and silly to jump to crazy conclusions. I'm done on this and will finish by saying you will be very disappointed if you think they are going to come t the conclusion the Colts doctored a ball. I feel that pretty much nothing will come out but would be shocked if that fairy tale weaved in Boston proves true.

Well I think you  or someone said how do the colts guarantee an INT so that kinda throws that out imo. And really it'd be kind of silly of them to even think of such a thing. What do you gain? The colts might not like losing to us recently but they have no evil revenge aka Mangini.

 

Btw how that work out Mangini. Coaching circle is tight- people remember stuff- for a long time:)