The LOGO gauge did it!

[hwc]

It dawned on me last night that the Exponent study in the Wells Report proved that Walt Anderson's memory was correct and he used the LOGO gauge to measure the balls pre-game.

Not much discussion here, but Exponent tested Bill Belichick Vito's explanation that the Pats roughing up the balls to prepare them temporarily increases the PSI. They used the same Wilson supplied gloves and followed the same procedures as the Pats and found that the balls increased by as 0.7 PSI (page 34 of the Exponent addendum:

The pressure inside the ball subjected to the rubbing is shown in Figure 16. It can be seen that the
pressure inside the football rises throughout the rubbing process. (The non-linear nature of the rise in
pressure is presumably due to variations in the operator’s rubbing throughout the period.) It can be
seen that the maximum rise in pressure was approximately 0.7 psig, which occurred at the end of
the rubbing process (t = 30 minutes on the plot below).

Exponent further found that this temporary increase in PSI had dissipated after 30 minutes. Thus, the Wells Report rejected it as a factor in this case because the balls had been sitting for more than an hour when Anderson "gauged" them in the pre-game inspection and found them to be at 12.5 PSI. Fine. That's probably true, but it overlooks something important.

In prepping the balls, Jastremski does the vigorous rubbing, raises the PSI by 0.7 PSI, exactly as Belichick and Exponent confirmed. Then, he sets the pressure at 12.5 on his gauge and puts the balls in the duffle bag to schlep to the officials locker room. But, in reality, those balls will NOT be at 12.5 PSI on an accurate gauge when they are measured more than 30 minutes later, The effect of the vigorous rubbing will have dissipated and the balls will actually be and will measure something below 12.5.

This means that, if Anderson had used the accurate non-LOGO gauge to measure the balls, they would have all been below 12.5 PSI. The Wells Report proved that. The only way those balls would have given Anderson the 12.5 to 12.6 measurements that he remembers would be if he used the gauge he recalls, the LOGO gauge, that reads artificially high. In reality, Anderson approved balls that were below the legal standard, but he didn't know because the gauge he used read 0.4 PSI too high.

The Pats didn't know because nobody had ever tested the effect on PSI of the vigorous rubbing until Bill Belichick Vito did it and Exponent confirmed his results for the Wells Report.

 

[sieglo]

Hey, this is pretty clever.

 

[Eric Manchester]

Excellent insight. Absolutely excellent. I wish I knew how to get some of these ideas out to the national press---it is appalling how many of them still don't have critical facts straight.

In any case, your argument only solidifies the point (though it does so OUTSTANDINGLY)---I have always insisted that it is odd that the ONLY THING they dismissed from the refs collection is the gauge used.

In addition, something the Wells rebuttal didn't note, is that on page 62 of the Exponent appendices, it says that a wet ball can be up to .3 PSI lower than a dry one. They confirmed balls were wet but not waterlogged.

Now, if one assumes the higher gauge was used (as I have), then only 2 balls were below the acceptable PSI (i.e., what measured 12.5 on gauge, if gauge was high, was really 12.05-12.2, so the 11.32-11.52 acceptable deflation actually should have been 10.85-11.2). The lowest readings were 10.7 and 10.5. This is already within range of reasonable margin of error, BUT if one allows for another -.3 due to ball dampness, it gets one down to 10.55, which is basically where the lowest ball was at.

In addition, I have wondered about the following: it says the games were measured pre-game in the shower room. Now, Wells makes a big deal about how shower room was cooler (67-71) than the rest of the locker room (71-74), which would also marginally work against Pats (since the drop on field would be a tad less). HOWEVER, no consideration was given as to whether showers might have been in use right before measurement--this would make room temp considerably warmer, making the 1-1/2 PSI drop on the field even more pronounced.

 

[VectorPrime]

While a great anaylysis I was hoping based on the thread title that some definitive proof came out that showed which gauge was used.

 

[Brewskies]

Why do they use two different gauges in the first place?

 

[oldrover]

I was told there'd be no math in this forum.

 

[NashuaPats]

Exponent clearly intended to deceive by leaving this point out of the report. My guess is that they did this test, as it is the proper test to determine which gauge was used, but chose to ignore it because it did not give the desired results. Instead, they used a convoluted irrelevant test using a master gauge.

We also know Jastremski rubbed the balls down before setting the psi. From the report, "Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved".

Also if the room Jastremski and the Colts equipment manager prepared the balls was just a few degrees warmer than where Anderson measured them, it's more likely the Logo gauge was used.

I wrote about this a few days ago.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ge-was-used-the-non-logo-or-the-logo.1120199/

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Why do they use two different gauges in the first place?

Probably just to have a backup or in the event more than 1 person wanted to use a gauge concurrently. Anderson recalled using the Logo gauge pre-game, but Wells disregarded that recollection and assumed the other gauge because he could manufacture a crime from those readings. The refs didn't know that the 2 gauges produced different readings.

 

[hwc]

The NFL doesn't supply gauges. The rules require the home team to supply a pump and a gauge to the officials locker room for testing the balls pregame. Walt Anderson just happened to travel with two gauges in his kit that he had acquired over the years. They had never been calibrated. He would have had no idea that one read consistently 0.4 psi too high. Why would he? 0.4 PSI (or the 0.7PSI immediately after rubbing) is completely undetectable. It's meaningless.

 

[hwc]

BTW, the league required gauge and pump was what the text string about "needles" was all about. McNally was *****ing because Jastremski had given him a gauge with a needle and a pump without a needle. This meant that as McNally tried to ensure the refs got the balls back to Brady's preferred 12.5, the refs had to switch the needle back and forth between the pump and the gauge. McNally war ribbing Jastremski to provide a second needle so that both the pump and gauge were ready to go. And, make it long one because the long needle is what he refs like (and the reason Anderson knew he used the LOGO gauge -- it had a long needle, the other one had a short needle).

 

[NashuaPats]

The NFL doesn't supply gauges. The rules require the home team to supply a pump and a gauge to the officials locker room for testing the balls pregame. Walt Anderson just happened to travel with two gauges in his kit that he had acquired over the years. They had never been calibrated. He would have had no idea that one read consistently 0.4 psi too high. Why would he? 0.4 PSI (or the 0.7PSI immediately after rubbing) is completely undetectable. It's meaningless.

Yes, 0.4 is meaningless. Yet, Exponent had the gall to write the below quote... as persuaded by Wells and the NFL no doubt. The fact that they "overlooked" the important point made in this thread makes it obvious there was an agenda. I wish I knew how to communicate this to the Patriots.

"However, based on all of the information provided to us, particularly regarding the timing and sequencing of the measurements conducted by the game officials at halftime, and on our testing and analyses, we conclude that within the range of game characteristics most likely to have occurred on Game Day, we have identified no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the additional loss in air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls as compared to the loss in air pressure exhibited by the Colts game balls measured during halftime of the AFC Championship Game."

 

[eom]

Yes, 0.4 is meaningless. Yet, Exponent had the gall to write the below quote... as persuaded by Wells and the NFL no doubt. The fact that they "overlooked" the important point made in this thread makes it obvious there was an agenda. I wish I knew how to communicate this to the Patriots.

you could twitter their account, or try reiss

 

[Brewskies]

Stupid where is the consistency? Let's have the league provide one brand of gauge and needles for the future.

 

[hambone1818]

That's a great point, OP, very logical and yet since the report was first released this is the first I've heard of it. Makes total and complete sense.

Unfortunately the Wells investigation and report focused on text messages far more than science. If they had really laid down the exact timeline and procedures something like this would have been glaring obvious, and taken into account in their analysis.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Because I've admittedly not read the entire 240-whatever page report, I'm admittedly a bit confused by this. What you mention seems like such common sense that I'm surprised it took this long for somebody to notice.

I guess Wells and his team of Clouseaus are even more inept than we thought.

 

[patsfan13]

The real truth is that the NFL knew nothing of gas laws and the process to check the balls were a joke.

No one cared until bitter Colts execs and NFL/ex Jets exec saw a chance to play gotcha with the PAts.

They were smeared, by the misleading leaks and the ball rolled down the hill, with help from scientific illiterate sports 'journalist ' who never took a math or science class.

 

[neuronet]

I was told there'd be no math in this forum.

 

[hwc]

The only reason the NFL claims the non-logo gauge was used is because the balls measured 12.4 to 12.6 PSI according to Walt Anderson and that matched the 12.6 PSI that Jastremski said he had inflated them to. The LOGO guage would have read 13.0 on the Pats balls, so the NFL concluded Walt Anderson must have been wrong and must have used the more accurate non-LOGO gauge.

They simply didn't take into account that Jastremski's 12.6PSI inflation was done when the balls were temporarily increased in pressure from the ball prep. Jastremski wouldn't have known because nobody knew until Bill Belichick Vito tested the effect of the ball prep.

Take away the NFL's only reason for calling Anderson a liar and you have to take his word that he used the LOGO gauge, just like you take his word that the balls measured 12.5 on that gauge. If you don't take his word, then you have nothing.

So, obviously, now that you know the LOGO gauge was used pre-game, you simply compare that the LOGO gauge measurements at halftime. According to the Wells report scientific studies, the temperature difference predicted that balls at 12.5 pregame would measure 11.32 to 11.52 at the beginning of halftime. The 11 Pats balls, measured at halftime with the LOGO guage, averaged 11.49. There is no evidence of tampering. None. The stories add up. The numbers add up.

Now, you can dive into the weeds and say that that the balls might have gone up a bit with warmth 2 to 6 minutes into halftime. Or, that the Well Report underestimated the effect of rain by just spritzing the balls with a spray bottle every 15 minutes. But, seriously? Seriously? You are going to suspend a player for 4 game, dock a first round draft pick, and a $1 million fine when you measure the balls before the game and at halftime with the same gauge and get the exactly the results you would expect, within the accuracy tolerances of the gauges and human measurement. Really? You are going to do that?

 

[Deus Irae]

The NFL doesn't supply gauges. The rules require the home team to supply a pump and a gauge to the officials locker room for testing the balls pregame. Walt Anderson just happened to travel with two gauges in his kit that he had acquired over the years. They had never been calibrated. He would have had no idea that one read consistently 0.4 psi too high. Why would he? 0.4 PSI (or the 0.7PSI immediately after rubbing) is completely undetectable. It's meaningless.

This will all be changed. The NFL will now have gauges supplied and calibrated, and the officials will have to write down the PSI measurements of every football before the game and, in all probability, after the game, too. What will be interesting to watch is whether they will also measure them all again at halftime.

 

[Rawky77]

Excellent insight. Absolutely excellent. I wish I knew how to get some of these ideas out to the national press---it is appalling how many of them still don't have critical facts straight.

In any case, your argument only solidifies the point (though it does so OUTSTANDINGLY)---I have always insisted that it is odd that the ONLY THING they dismissed from the refs collection is the gauge used.

In addition, something the Wells rebuttal didn't note, is that on page 62 of the Exponent appendices, it says that a wet ball can be up to .3 PSI lower than a dry one. They confirmed balls were wet but not waterlogged.

Now, if one assumes the higher gauge was used (as I have), then only 2 balls were below the acceptable PSI (i.e., what measured 12.5 on gauge, if gauge was high, was really 12.05-12.2, so the 11.32-11.52 acceptable deflation actually should have been 10.85-11.2). The lowest readings were 10.7 and 10.5. This is already within range of reasonable margin of error, BUT if one allows for another -.3 due to ball dampness, it gets one down to 10.55, which is basically where the lowest ball was at.

In addition, I have wondered about the following: it says the games were measured pre-game in the shower room. Now, Wells makes a big deal about how shower room was cooler (67-71) than the rest of the locker room (71-74), which would also marginally work against Pats (since the drop on field would be a tad less). HOWEVER, no consideration was given as to whether showers might have been in use right before measurement--this would make room temp considerably warmer, making the 1-1/2 PSI drop on the field even more pronounced.

This again is Wells inventing circumstance that did not exist to skew the outcome of the science. It does not state that the balls were stored in the shower room only that the balls were measured in the shower room. Thus the balls were in the locker room for most of an Hour before they were taken to the shower room and measured.
Considering that all the balls were set properly by McNally the entire process could not have taken more then a few minutes as none had to be adjusted upward.
If the balls had been stored and measured in the shower area then none would have been above the 12.5Lb limit because they would have dropped below that threshold due to cooling in the shower area. So while Wells continues to blow smoke the science continues to prove that the Pats did nothing to the balls. So tell Mr. Goodell to go and suspend nature if he dares.