(Post Edit): Breaking: NFL Ref's Press Conference Just Blew Deflategate To Pieces!!!!!!

[supafly]

The Patriots were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion based solely on "leaked reports" that stated our footballs were 2 PSI lower and the Colt's footballs showed no change. The thing is, you can't even know this. You didn't record any PSIs. So what are we supposed to believe, that Walt Anderson has an idetic memory and just knows from 48 footballs, which ball was at which PSI? How can the "source" know the PSI difference without a baseline?

The phrase/word "baseline" has been something that I've been referring to, and obviously had some people confused.

There was still a baseline test when Walt Anderson measured the balls with a pressure gauge and concluded that they correctly fell within the approved range, so it will be up to the investigators and NFL to determine what they feel is acceptable or not.

As far as the court of public opinion, the only way that's likely to change is if the NFL issues a complete apology and exonerates them with zero wrongdoing. I'm skeptical as to whether or not that will ever happen.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Couldn't we appeal as Rice did and get a third party in there to sort out the BS?

No. Rice is a player. NE is a team. Teams have way fewer rights/protections than players do with respect to challenging league discipline. Teams get one appeal (also to Goodell) and then have to live with whatever Goodell decides.

Now, if they were to try to punish Brady, then you might be able to get a 3rd party in there (which is another reason I think they won't punish Brady).

 

[Fixit]

I look forward to Brunell calling Vinovich a liar through a haze of tears.

 

[Betterthanmost]

So when is someone going to take Jay Glazer to task for reporting that it was a sting operation? Never seen a sting like this before.

 

[supafly]

I trust him to tell the truth.

Out of all of the possible refs that could have been involved in this, I am actually somewhat thankful that it was Walt Anderson, and that has nothing to do with any past bias.

Perhaps that is why I'm having a hard time placing all of the blame on him.

 

[phil112]

I've been watching/reading the coverage of that conference. Altho this could possibly be the most watched sporting event in the world, the refs are going to figure out a way to give it to the seahawks.
I was hoping, and said as much in another post, that the amount of scrutiny this game will get should make the refs double down on getting it right. I now no longer believe the refs give a rats rear end who is watching. I am starting to get a bad feeling about this. And to top it off Brady apparently has a cold, if not the flu.

 

[supafly]

So when is someone going to take Jay Glazer to task for reporting that it was a sting operation? Never seen a sting like this before.

That's an excellent question, particularly since he loves to brag about his "3 sources" rule where he refuses to break any news until it's been confirmed by three different sources.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Out of all of the possible refs that could have been involved in this, I am actually somewhat thankful that it was Walt Anderson, and that has nothing to do with any past bias.

Why? (I don't mean that as a challenge but as an honest question. I know nothing about Walt Anderson so don't know why one would be thankful (or not) that he was involved.)

 

[supafly]

I've been watching/reading the coverage of that conference. Altho this could possibly be the most watched sporting event in the world, the refs are going to figure out a way to give it to the seahawks.
I was hoping, and said as much in another post, that the amount of scrutiny this game will get should make the refs double down on getting it right. I now no longer believe the refs give a rats rear end who is watching. I am starting to get a bad feeling about this. And to top it off Brady apparently has a cold, if not the flu.

Keep in mind that Brady has 72+ hours to continue to heal, and is getting some of the best treatment the world can see.

Also, he had a very severe case of the flu back in the 2004 AFCCG at Pittsburgh, where he played lights out. I believe his fever was around 102 or so. It was pretty bad.

 

[Haley]

The phrase/word "baseline" has been something that I've been referring to, and obviously had some people confused.

There was still a baseline test when Walt Anderson measured the balls with a pressure gauge and concluded that they correctly fell within the approved range, so it will be up to the investigators and NFL to determine what they feel is acceptable or not.

But this has no bearing on the very specific numbers quoted by the press. They were specific about the PSI loss, that's part of the problem. They pretended to have numbers that they clearly haven't got. First it was a 2 PSI drop from the original test. Then it was a 1 PSI drop from the original test. Now it will be a 1 PSI drop from the low water mark? See, this is starting to really lose credit.

Additionally, if we don't know the baseline for the Colt's footballs, we cannot be sure they did not exhibit a drop in PSI. If they were accepted at 13.5 and dropped to 12.5, then it would be a drop by 1 PSI. But not if that 13.5 number wasn't recorded. Then it would be 12.5 - 12.5 = 0.

As far as the court of public opinion, the only way that's likely to change is if the NFL issues a complete apology and exonerates them with zero wrongdoing. I'm skeptical as to whether or not that will ever happen.

Yes, this may be the case. There will always be the hater squad who refuses to accept the truth. However that may not direct the course of the NFL's finger waggers. We will have to wait and see on that one.

 

[BradyManny]

No. Rice is a player. NE is a team. Teams have way fewer rights/protections than players do with respect to challenging league discipline. Teams get one appeal (also to Goodell) and then have to live with whatever Goodell decides.

Now, if they were to try to punish Brady, then you might be able to get a 3rd party in there (which is another reason I think they won't punish Brady).

Good points.

 

[Ring 6]

Out of all of the possible refs that could have been involved in this, I am actually somewhat thankful that it was Walt Anderson, and that has nothing to do with any past bias.

Perhaps that is why I'm having a hard time placing all of the blame on him.

I'm not sure how he gets blamed. If he didn't put a gauge to them I don't think he is truly required to. (Blandinos comments are way too cryptic for me to conclude he actually meant Anderson gauged them all BEFORE the game, there was a lot of doublespeak)
If he did, I don't think he is required to write them down, but he either remembers the measurements, was told to bring them up to12.5, or just doesn't remember.
Lets not forget, the truth is our friend here, because the Patriots did nothing wrong.

 

[flasox27]

The facts that the Pats are innocent has no bearing on this case. Goodell will find the Pats guilty of something and punish them because it is to his interest and that of the league to do so after creating the media mess.Whether or not he planned it, he has embraced fully with some of the leaks th rough his chosen leaker, Glazer. He may have miscalculated in thinking that Kraft was so subservient to him that he would take it silently as in the past. I am not convinced that it would not have been the case except for the pleading of BB and Brady. I doubt seriously that the Pats will come out of this clean given the tarnished reputation. We however find out if Kraft still has any of supposed influence as to whether the POS survives this disaster.

 

[supafly]

Why? (I don't mean that as a challenge but as an honest question. I know nothing about Walt Anderson so don't know why one would be thankful (or not) that he was involved.)

Lots of experience, so his word may count for something a little extra.

He has proven to be impartial in my opinion, and that's not even bringing the 'tuck rule' into account back in 2001. I'm being totally serious. In the end, it probably doesn't matter that much, but I'm guessing that a guy like Walt Anderson will have zero problem telling it like it is. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[BradyManny]

I trust him to tell the truth.

Yeah, but how big are those error bars on his recollection of what the PSI was for 12 footballs? Columbia must think this thing is one big joke.

 

[hwc]

They don't have "nothing". They have Anderson's testimony about what he saw on the pre-game and halftime gauges.

Do they? Have you heard anything from Walt Anderson?

 

[Galeb]

Blame for what? I'm still waiting for someone to given an explanation of why a failure to write numbers down matters (especially to Goodell).

If Anderson says the following to investigators/Goodell, why will lack of a log matter?

"New England turned in their balls and asked me to set them at 12.5 PSI, which I did. So I know before the game all their balls were right at 12.5 PSI. At halftime when I measured them they were all below 12.5 PSI. Most of them were around 11.5 PSI. And one was around 10.5 PSI."

Exactly what is going to change if we only know a ball was about 1 PSI low rather than knowing it was precisely 0.8 PSI or 1.2 PSI too low? Even if he had logged it there's the uncertainty in the gauge anyways.

Don't get me wrong -- I think this whole debacle is BS. But I don't see the lack of a log as affecting the ultimate judgement of Goodell at all. Nor will the media and the haters care.

If you can't understand why it matters whether the pressure results were recorded, perhaps you should reconsider your active role in this discussion.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Blame for what? I'm still waiting for someone to given an explanation of why a failure to write numbers down matters (especially to Goodell).

If Anderson says the following to investigators/Goodell, why will lack of a log matter?

"New England turned in their balls and asked me to set them at 12.5 PSI, which I did. So I know before the game all their balls were right at 12.5 PSI. At halftime when I measured them they were all below 12.5 PSI. Most of them were around 11.5 PSI. And one was around 10.5 PSI."

Exactly what is going to change if we only know a ball was about 1 PSI low rather than knowing it was precisely 0.8 PSI or 1.2 PSI too low? Even if he had logged it there's the uncertainty in the gauge anyways.

Don't get me wrong -- I think this whole debacle is BS. But I don't see the lack of a log as affecting the ultimate judgement of Goodell at all. Nor will the media and the haters care.

Explain to me how the NFL's written report with input from physicists will blame the Patriots for the ~ 1 psi drop in the footballs given that we and their physicists KNOW that such a drop is natural.

The obvious question arises, what happened to that one outlier ball that was out of the chain of custody allegedly being held and "measured" by the Colts equipment manager?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

He has proven to be impartial in my opinion, and that's not even bringing the 'tuck rule' into account back in 2001.

'Tuck Rule' ref was Walt Coleman, not Walt Anderson.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If you can't understand why it matters whether the pressure results were recorded, perhaps you should reconsider your active role in this discussion.

So go ahead and edumacate stupid old me.