Patriots Caught Cheating: Used Underinflated Footballs

If slightly under-inflated balls are better in certain conditions, why isn't it standard procedure to play with slightly under-inflated balls in those conditions? Seems silly to make a rule that equipment has to be prepared in a way that is not optimal. Sort of like making a rule that all track/XC runners in all events must wear 1/4 inch spikes, then declaring it cheating if anyone deviates based on conditions.

Anyway, it's up to the officials to catch the foul during the game. You wouldn't go back to the video after the game and make a holding or pass interference call days after the fact. I don't see how this is any different.

Has there been any statement from the NFL regarding:

(A) How the balls were inspected pre-game? Can we say for sure if all 12 (or any) were pressure-gauged?

(B) If the Colts balls were also checked when they were measuring the Patriots balls to determine that 11 out of 12 were soft?

Actually, now that I look back at the story, the NFL hasn't said ANYTHING. Even the 11 out of 12 balls thing came from Chris Mortensen, as told to him by a source, not the league directly.

It's likely that Mortensen's report is accurate, but it's possible it's not. We're throwing around a lot of information as facts that haven't been confirmed as facts.

According to "reports" The head referee inspected all 24 balls and found them to be compliant

Then a complaint was lodged and Patriots balls were replaced, you can actually see the game delay of this process

Somebody certainly did something to change pressure down 1.5+ Pounds

I have to say even Brady seemed amazingly smug and arrogant , Belicheck? He is just an ahole.

They never said "THIS is an outrage" wait until we catch those culprits!!

Since supposedly the Ravens suspected them on "kicking" balls week before, you really do have to wonder how many games or years the Patriots skirt the rules. They really seem to not give a shit and think they are above it all.

Certainly Belichek does , if Marshawn Lynch gave his reponses he would be out of money by now, he saves more by NOT talking ,

By the way kind of hypocritical for Mikey Francesa to come donw so hard on this and actually say the owner is dereilect as well.

I do not remember his outrage at AROD blatantly lying to him on National TV /Radio or the fact that the Yankees by count had at least 6 suspected to knownsteroid users, talk about cheating?

Clemens

Knoblauch

AROD

Pettite

Giambi

Sheffield

I do not hear trhe outcry to give back some of those aided titles?

You have almost all of your facts wrong. Impressive.

The "reports" are just what standard procedure normally is. We don't know for sure.

The Colts linebacker came out yesterday and said he never lodged any complaints(he would NEVER be able to tell a 2 psi difference in the ball anyways)

The pressure was down 2 psi, not 1.5 or 2 pounds.

They didn't say "this is an outrage" because it isn't. It's 2 psi. An unnoticeable difference(several shows have brought balls to see if they can tell a difference and you can't)

Teams provide their OWN kicking balls. Not to mention the Ravens came out yesterday and said they never filed any complaints.

Bill is acting like it isn't a big deal because it isn't, he could care less about the football psi as he told you.

People just love to jump on a conspiracy,

Especially when it's a team that has had success.

"If they are better than us it must mean they cheat all day every day"

So if someone on the Patriots did in fact deflate the footballs after inspection, would you be okay with it?

Did they remeasure the Colts footballs at all to see if conditions could have affected both sets of balls equally?

I don't think so. They would have only did it if the Patriots complained.

Like in hockey when a team asks for a stick measurement to get a penalty.

So we are missing key evidence if in fact there was a great difference between the two sets of footballs.

uofoofo wrote:

So if someone on the Patriots did in fact deflate the footballs after inspection, would you be okay with it?

Yes, even if I were a diehard Colts fan, because I understand that 2 psi does not have an effect on the outcome of the game. Luck had his footballs prepared to his liking, so did Brady.

Due to how much this has blown up, I would prefer that officials do their job better in checking the balls prior to the game next time though. That way we can talk about the actual game as opposed to this crap.

Dial it up wrote:

uofoofo wrote:

So if someone on the Patriots did in fact deflate the footballs after inspection, would you be okay with it?

Yes, even if I were a diehard Colts fan, because I understand that 2 psi does not have an effect on the outcome of the game. Luck had his footballs prepared to his liking, so did Brady.

Due to how much this has blown up, I would prefer that officials do their job better in checking the balls prior to the game next time though. That way we can talk about the actual game as opposed to this crap.

Hey man I agree that it was almost certainly the refs fault for not properly testing them before the game and that the Pats deserve to be in the super bowl. They are incredible and Brady is incredible.

But if by some freak occurrence they did actually take the balls after the inspection and deflate them because they think their preference overrides rules, then unlike you I am not okay with it.

Sorry, stop sucking toms dick, he and his team are cheaters, this is not the first time they have been caught, makes you wonder how long they have been cheating and to what lengths.

And don't give me the pats don't complain, they are the biggest complainers out there, Brady is the biggest cry baby on the field. They filed a tampering complaint against the Jets for the remarks the owner made in some interview.

So shut up and take it like a man, the pats and Brady are cheaters.

waiting for the evidence wrote:

Has there been any statement from the NFL regarding:

(A) How the balls were inspected pre-game? Can we say for sure if all 12 (or any) were pressure-gauged?

(B) If the Colts balls were also checked when they were measuring the Patriots balls to determine that 11 out of 12 were soft?

^This, particularly (A). I read an article earlier today that mentions the same thing, including comments from a former ball boy who never saw an official check air pressure. And the ball boy also mentioned that it would be very difficult to alter the balls after official inspection.

It's interesting that the reaction within the NFL (players) has been so mixed. Many believing it's an non-issue, others expressing their concern for the Pats "cheating."

Here's the article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/could-the-nfl-be-covering-for-its-officials-with-deflategate/ar-AA8w0YH.

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. The rule exactly states, "The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed..." It does not specify ***pounds per square inch***. It would be like saying the speed limit is "65 miles." The rule as written is basically useless and open to interpretation.

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

kanny wrote:

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. The rule exactly states, "The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed..." It does not specify ***pounds per square inch***. It would be like saying the speed limit is "65 miles." The rule as written is basically useless and open to interpretation.

Good point.

Even looking past this, the rule only states that the balls must be inflated to 12.5-13.5 pounds; not that they must be maintained at that pressure. Once you have inflated the ball to 12.5 lbs/square inch, you have complied with the rule and you can presumably do whatever you want with the balls.

Grintz wrote:

1. You are excused. The poll cited was mentioned on Sportscenter this evening.

2. What's different about this? Seriously? The Pats didn't cut the course. They played the whole game. A better analogy might be a high school kid racing barefoot. It's illegal, but doesn't significantly change the outcome of the race.

No, the better running analogy is that we are all told that we will be racing 400 meters. We are all told that we can wear cross country spikes but not sprint spikes. Despite this someone wears sprint spikes. They beat us all by such a wide margin that we are all pretty sure they would have won no matter what spikes they wore.

So, next race is 800 meters, how many of us would wear sprint spikes now if there was no penalty imposed in the first race???

analogia wrote:

Grintz wrote:

1. You are excused. The poll cited was mentioned on Sportscenter this evening.

2. What's different about this? Seriously? The Pats didn't cut the course. They played the whole game. A better analogy might be a high school kid racing barefoot. It's illegal, but doesn't significantly change the outcome of the race.

No, the better running analogy is that we are all told that we will be racing 400 meters. We are all told that we can wear cross country spikes but not sprint spikes. Despite this someone wears sprint spikes. They beat us all by such a wide margin that we are all pretty sure they would have won no matter what spikes they wore.

So, next race is 800 meters, how many of us would wear sprint spikes now if there was no penalty imposed in the first race???

Agreed. With the caveat that they checked in with the xc spikes and switched to the sprint spikes before the race.

exactly, thanks

also here is a question since they mention kicking balls as well:

in baseball they can check a bat after a home run (George Brett) and take away the score if they find the bat was not regulation, pine tar, etc. In baseball they always wait to out a suspected cheater until it counts.

so Superbowl: score 21-19 Patriots, 0:01 left on clock, Seattle kicks winning field goal time expires. Belichek comes out and challenges the kicked ball was overinflated. The refs check it, find that it was overinflated, disallow the field goal. Patriots win. Yes or no? Or final touchdown as well.

The rules as to what can/can't be challenged are pretty narrow and the condition of the ball is not one of them. If a ball is allowed in play it's assumed to be a legal ball.