Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

PatsWickedPissah · May 12, 2016

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:
This has always been the overlooked issue that I harp about!

One NFL employee tested one of the footballs (the intercepted ball) not once but three different times, using the same pressure gauge, and obtained these values: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi. Note that the range in the three measurements is 0.4 psi.

I ask you, is 11.35 different from 11.75? In this context, obviously not, since they are both measurements that were made on the same football by the same person! There is clearly some inherent variability / error in the measuring air pressure in a football. The “error bar” for a pressure gauge reading was quite high, by these particular people using these same gauges, and it was at least 0.4 psi!

Apply this error bar concept to the Patriots footballs that were measured at halftime (one time each, with any particular gauge) and anyone with half a brain will spot the problem. Let’s even accept the Wells argument that only the readings made by using the gauge that the refs thought to be irrelevant (but was the one that would make the Patriots look most suspicious) should be considered.

A pressure drop of “1.39 plus or minus 0.4” is, in fact, not different at all from “1.18 plus or minus 0.4”.

It is not high-level physics. It is not based upon a complicated theoretical abstraction. It is the result of applying plain common sense!

I wish I'd written this post which describes simply & clearly what I meant by "error bars" in the measurements.

Tony2046 · May 12, 2016

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:
This has always been the overlooked issue that I harp about!

One NFL employee tested one of the footballs (the intercepted ball) not once but three different times, using the same pressure gauge, and obtained these values: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi. Note that the range in the three measurements is 0.4 psi.

I ask you, is 11.35 different from 11.75? In this context, obviously not, since they are both measurements that were made on the same football by the same person! There is clearly some inherent variability / error in the measuring air pressure in a football. The “error bar” for a pressure gauge reading was quite high, by these particular people using these same gauges, and it was at least 0.4 psi!

Apply this error bar concept to the Patriots footballs that were measured at halftime (one time each, with any particular gauge) and anyone with half a brain will spot the problem. Let’s even accept the Wells argument that only the readings made by using the gauge that the refs thought to be irrelevant (but was the one that would make the Patriots look most suspicious) should be considered.

A pressure drop of “1.39 plus or minus 0.4” is, in fact, not different at all from “1.18 plus or minus 0.4”.

It is not high-level physics. It is not based upon a complicated theoretical abstraction. It is the result of applying plain common sense!

Those initial measurements were very damning to the NEL's case. It was the first measurement. No acclimation timeline needed. Funny how they dismissed it in the Well's report.

As to your "error bar" argument, which I agree with, I find it amusing that they recorded the three initial (intercepted ball) pressures which varied 0.4 psi but then later post a repeatability chart that states a variance between same gauge readings of 0.04.

The Gr8est · May 12, 2016

Tony2046 said:
Those initial measurements were very damning to the NEL's case. It was the first measurement. No acclimation timeline needed. Funny how they dismissed it in the Well's report.

As to your "error bar" argument, which I agree with, I find it amusing that they recorded the three initial (intercepted ball) pressures which varied 0.4 psi but then later post a repeatability chart that states a variance between same gauge readings of 0.04.

View attachment 12928

I like the visual commentary that the graph presents if you just look at the graph, and only the graph.

Tony2046 · May 12, 2016

The Gr8est said:
I like the visual commentary that the graph presents if you just look at the graph, and only the graph.

hahaha.

So is that Teddy giving Brady the middle finger?

Tony2046 · May 15, 2016

@letekro , @QuantumMechanic

I ran into this today. Have you ever seen this? It helps explain the discrepancy in the charts you (Letekro) questioned earlier in this thread.

Rusty Griswold · May 15, 2016

Tony2046 said:
@letekro , @QuantumMechanic

I ran into this today. Have you ever seen this? It helps explain the discrepancy in the charts you questioned earlier in this thread.

you have not seen that until now? yeah, i think the most damning thing in that is the refs barely inspecting the balls.

absolutely damning.

i open rhe defamation suit procesedings with that clip. and close with it for that matter.

Froob · May 15, 2016

When's the final day to file?

Jackson 2 · May 15, 2016

5/23 I believe.

Jackson 2 · May 15, 2016

Ivan said:
I'll be interested to see how hard Olsen goes at the NFL for repeatedly lying to the courts.

I'd pay heavy cash to see that happen...

Ivan · May 15, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
I'd pay heavy cash to see that happen...

I think it's the tack that would work the best, establish that there was never any evidence that Brady was guilty and that the league had to lie to the courts to make their case. Arguing the scope of Goodell's authority does no good if the justices are of the misguided belief that Brady is guilty.

Patsfanin Philly · May 15, 2016

Ivan said:
I'll be interested to see how hard Olsen goes at the NFL for repeatedly lying to the courts.

You tend to listen to people who are smarter than you. The judges ( if they have any sense) will listen to a guy who has probably argued ( and won 3/4) more cases before the US Supreme Court than any man alive....
If he tells you that you were lied to , a rational person with an open mind says, " I want to hear more".....

Tony2046 · May 15, 2016

Rusty Griswold said:
you have not seen that until now? yeah, i think the most damning thing in that is the refs barely inspecting the balls.

absolutely damning.

i open rhe defamation suit procesedings with that clip. and close with it for that matter.

I've seen many like it but not that specific one. I posted it in reference to letek's question about the transient curve charts in the Exponent attachment.

Side note: Besides the sham deflategate has been I've really enjoyed reading the detailed posts of many from this forum ranging from the legalities of it to the science behind it. Really good stuff.

(you're a pretty good poster as well, btw)

Jimke · May 15, 2016

We are all hoping that Olson will argue against Brady's suspension based on faulty psi evidence. I'm afraid
that he will continue the NFLPA's tact of banging their head against the wall trying to dispute Article 46.

Ivan · May 15, 2016

Jimke said:
We are all hoping that Olson will argue against Brady's suspension based on faulty psi evidence. I'm afraid
that he will continue the NFLPA's tact of banging their head against the wall trying to dispute Article 46.

I trust that Olsen has a really good understanding of how best to approach the courts with this issue. Clement lied to the court during the appeal and the NFL has been twisting the contents of the Wells Report since the appeal to Goodell, where he started the twisting. Imo the best shot for Brady is to stack up the lies and misrepresentations by the league and its lawyers and demonstrate that the only way the league could make their case is through those lies and misrepresentations.

RelocatedPatFan · May 15, 2016

Jimke said:
We are all hoping that Olson will argue against Brady's suspension based on faulty psi evidence. I'm afraid
that he will continue the NFLPA's tact of banging their head against the wall trying to dispute Article 46.

Good Point. Maybe Brady needs a guy to represent his interests and one to represent the NFLPA's interests as the two have different agendas (ultimately). Thus, they'd be able to approach the topic from 2 very different viewpoints where the goal would be the same. Reverse the punishment and the NFL's vicotry.

VectorPrime · May 15, 2016

I'm more worried about whether Brady gets a hearing at all than how said hearing will go.

Ivan · May 15, 2016

VectorPrime said:
I'm more worried about whether Brady gets a hearing at all than how said hearing will go.

And the best way to get it is to show they got it wrong the first time.

VectorPrime · May 15, 2016

Ivan said:
And the best way to get it is to show they got it wrong the first time.

Is there an oral appeal for a hearing or is it all in the briefs they'll file?

ViperGTS · May 15, 2016

VectorPrime said:
Is there an oral appeal for a hearing or is it all in the briefs they'll file?

As far as I know it's a brief. No oral arguments unless an en banc review is allowed. So it better be a spectacular piece of paper that's for sure.

I hope they use the appropriate color on the cover letter..

Oh wait they aren't the NFL.

VectorPrime · May 15, 2016

So how long and detailed are the briefs allowed to be? Do they need to be really short and concise like a resume or can they essentially write a book presenting a point by point smackdown of every single thing the NFL has claimed?

Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

On the Game Day Roster

Independent Investigator & pliable af

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Hall of Fame Poster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pro Bowl Player

Hall of Fame Poster

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads