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

[SlowGettingUp]

I'll wager tom's odds are FAR greater than what people are quoting.

I grant you this. But if Tom's odds are 100x the norm, that still only gets you to an under 3% shot. So it's a shot, but it's definitely still a Hail Mary.

 

[The Gr8est]

To put man's knowledge of gas law in context, the Salem witch trials happened 30 years AFTER Boyle first published the relationship of volume, pressure, and temperature.

OK. I am confused.

Are you saying there is a scientific relationship between depressurized footballs and burning witches?

 

[flasox27]

Yes, this whole farce is a witch hunt.

 

[Tony2046]

I thought this particular functional relationship between pressure and temperature at constant volume (for an "ideal" gas) was Gay-Lussac's Law. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

They say as much in the Exponent attachment although I think they consider all basic laws as part of the IGL.

Or is it Amonton's law?

 

[jimnance]

I grant you this. But if Tom's odds are 100x the norm, that still only gets you to an under 3% shot. So it's a shot, but it's definitely still a Hail Mary.

Well,yeah,lol. Still a long shot-but nothing as bad as most people are quoting. Unlike most people, it seems, I wouldnt be surprised either way -if they grant the appeal or not.

 

[Tony2046]

It won't since the appeal is about labor law not what did or did not happen

Understand that but labor laws are still supposed to follow the principles of fundamental fairness, are they not?

If the science states nothing happened would that not weigh in the thoughts of the judge(s) mind that fairness was not achieved? Even as a footnote the science would support that Goodell was able to punish a player using his interpretations of the CBA without any evidence of wrongdoing.

Aside from that we know that 2 judges have ruled in favor of Brady and 2 against . Why? Because of how they interpret the law. I don't think any of them thought their decisions were absolute and one thing or another swayed them towards the way they voted.

I do understand what you are saying but I guess I hope that this letter will have some kind of impact in their decision to at least send this to an en banc hearing.

 

[Tony2046]

Yes, this whole farce is a witch hunt.

Clever.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I thought this particular functional relationship between pressure and temperature at constant volume (for an "ideal" gas) was Gay-Lussac's Law. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

First Boyle studied absolute pressure vs. volume at a constant temperature, in the 1660s.

Then Guiles Amontons in about 1700-1702 studied absolute pressure vs. absolute temperature at a constant volume. Gay-Lussac actually discovered pretty much the same thing, 100 years later, and unfortunately got WAY more credit than Amontons. Maybe it is because Gay-Lussac was able to show that it works with all common gases, such as oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, while Amontons focused just on air. I'm a rebel and so I call the relationship of absolute pressure and absolute temperature at a constant volume "Amontons' law" instead of Gay-Lussac's law.

Gay-Lussac also described the third combo, temperature vs. volume at a constant pressure. For this part, Gay-Lussac credited the unpublished work of Charles, thus the temp-volume law became widely known as Charles's law.

pressure-volume = Boyle
temp-volume = Charles
temp-pressure = Gay-Lussac (but really Amontons)

Gay-Lussac's (aka Amontons') law, Charles's Law, Boyle's law, and Avogadro's Law (relating P, V, and T to the actual number of atoms that are present) are all captured in the ideal gas law. Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron, a founding father of thermodynamics, in 1834 gets the credit for mashing them all together into the ideal gas law, PV=nRT.

bottom line: Since footballs are assumed to be constant volume, and they contain air, the physical chemistry of the footballs in the AFCCG was pretty much nailed by Guiles Amontons in 1700-1702.

Thus we can say that the NFL is about 315 years behind.

/takes off my history of science cap

 

[letekro]

Understand that but labor laws are still supposed to follow the principles of fundamental fairness, are they not?

If the science states nothing happened would that not weigh in the thoughts of the judge(s) mind that fairness was not achieved? Even as a footnote the science would support that Goodell was able to punish a player using his interpretations of the CBA without any evidence of wrongdoing.

Aside from that we know that 2 judges have ruled in favor of Brady and 2 against . Why? Because of how they interpret the law. I don't think any of them thought their decisions were absolute and one thing or another swayed them towards the way they voted.

I do understand what you are saying but I guess I hope that this letter will have some kind of impact in their decision to at least send this to an en banc hearing.

The science doesn't say nothing happened. The science says there is a theory that explains some or all of the pressure drop, but without knowing the inputs to that theory, we don't know definitively whether it explains some or all of the pressure drop. Big difference. Still, doesn't hurt to drop the IGL on the judges one more time just in case they missed it.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The science says that, given the uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, the pressure drops that were recorded for all of the footballs can be fully explained without anyone taking any air out of any of the footballs.

If you were to make the goofy assumption that someone must have taken some air out of the footballs, then indeed given this same uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, you can argue that it cannot be disproven that the balls were tampered with.

Seeking to prove a negative is silly, though. You do not charge someone with doing something because it cannot be proven that he didn't do it. That's idiocy. That's Goodell. You charge someone with doing something if it can be proven that he did do it, in this case with the standard of "more likely than not".

That standard was never met. Not even close.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Are you saying there is a scientific relationship between depressurized footballs and burning witches?

Of course. Just like for witches, if you forcibly hold a football under water and it does not float, then someone is clearly guilty.

 

[Tony2046]

The science says that, given the uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, the pressure drops that were recorded for all of the footballs can be fully explained without anyone taking any air out of any of the footballs.

If you were to make the goofy assumption that someone must have taken some air out of the footballs, then indeed given this same uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, you can argue that it cannot be disproven that the balls were tampered with.

Seeking to prove a negative is silly, though. You do not charge someone with doing something because it cannot be proven that he didn't do it. That's idiocy. That's Goodell. You charge someone with doing something if it can be proven that he did do it, in this case with the standard of "more likely than not".

That standard was never met. Not even close.

Thanks for that clarification or explaining it in that manner.

I've been digging into the science of this BS for the sake of understanding it although I've understood enough coupled with all the peripheral BS such as Roger's mischaracterizations etc.. to conclude that this was a complete sham.

Unfortunately I've also learned too much in that I now question the motives, agendas and validity of just about anyone trying to prove anything to the public including if not especially our current winner circle of potential presidential candidates.

I'd like to go back to my ignorant world in which I thought I could just do my job and leaders would do theirs as they promised they would.

 

[Tony2046]

Thats why Ive been saying all along I dont think Bradys chances of getting an en banc are as much of a long shot as people think. Those stats are deceptive anyway-first, theyre not quantified. You cant just say "only 8 appeals out of 20,000 (or whatever) were granted"--you have to first remove all the cases that werent already originally won in court(eg Berman), that will likely remove thousands-then ,of those remaining, remove those where the vote was as close to 2-1, PLUS the dissenting opinion was the CHIEF JUDGE. Add that to the high-profile nature of this case-and I'll wager tom's odds are FAR greater than waht people are quoting. You dont need to be legal expert to know that-just use a little common sense.

Just read this in Myers column posted in another thread.

Myers: Goodell, NFL must forget Deflategate, focus on concussions (<<Link)

"It’s a longshot the 13 active judges of the Second Circuit will vote to hear the case. But if they request the NFL to file a legal brief to answer the NFLPA’s petition, it will be an indication it will hear the case and then could rule for Brady. The Second Circuit usually agrees to hear only about 1% of the cases that are requested. The fact that Chief Judge Robert Katzmann offered the dissenting opinion last month increases the chances of it being heard by the full panel to 20%, according to Daniel Wallach, a sports law expert at Becker and Poliakoff in Fort Lauderdale who has been closely following Deflategate."

 

[IllegalContact]

It won't since the appeal is about labor law not what did or did not happen

And the interpretation of labor law.....based on the CBA as well as precedence, even if Brady did do something, the process of punishment due to equipment was not followed. It can easily be explained that the process in this instance was not followed.

The NFL means to say, based in article 46 is that the commissioner can do whatever he wants and it is bein argued that that is not true.

Also, anything can be reviewed if it was deemed to impact the results or the interpretation of the rules.

The standard is due process in larger issues such as this , and that did not happen

If one dismisses fact such as NGL, the they're not interested in following process or precedent in good faith.

The term 'industrial justice' is sure to be heard again

 

[letekro]

The science says that, given the uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, the pressure drops that were recorded for all of the footballs can be fully explained without anyone taking any air out of any of the footballs.

If you were to make the goofy assumption that someone must have taken some air out of the footballs, then indeed given this same uncertainty about the exact conditions of the measurements (temp, timing, which gauge etc.) and the inherent error in making the measurements, you can argue that it cannot be disproven that the balls were tampered with.

Seeking to prove a negative is silly, though. You do not charge someone with doing something because it cannot be proven that he didn't do it. That's idiocy. That's Goodell. You charge someone with doing something if it can be proven that he did do it, in this case with the standard of "more likely than not".

That standard was never met. Not even close.

You are saying the exact same thing I am, from a scientific perspective. Unfortunately, Goodell is free is to look at all the facts and conclude that the balls were deflated. Tom can't win by arguing that the evidence is weak and that no one in their right mind would conclude the balls were deflated. That's a losing argument here. His case would be bolstered, however, if it were scientifically impossible for the balls to have been manually deflated. But that is not the case, and no scientist would claim that to be the case. Thus, we are left with the only mildly compelling, very technical, contract-interpretation arguments set forth in Olson's petition.

 

[Danger Zone]

You are saying the exact same thing I am, from a scientific perspective. Unfortunately, Goodell is free is to look at all the facts and conclude that the balls were deflated. Tom can't win by arguing that the evidence is weak and that no one in their right mind would conclude the balls were deflated. That's a losing argument here. His case would be bolstered, however, if it were scientifically impossible for the balls to have been manually deflated. But that is not the case, and no scientist would claim that to be the case. Thus, we are left with the only mildly compelling, very technical, contract-interpretation arguments set forth in Olson's petition.

Yes, but PalmBeachPatsFan isn't being pedantic about it and his goal isn't to twist the knife a little.

So, no, not really saying the same thing at all.

 

[letekro]

Yes, but PalmBeachPatsFan isn't being pedantic about it and his goal isn't to twist the knife a little.

So, no, not really saying the same thing at all.

The adults can discuss these things objectively without getting their feelings hurt. I can't promise that I won't again fail to censor myself to protect the more fragile of our flock.

 

[Danger Zone]

The adults can discuss these things objectively without getting their feelings hurt. I can't promise that I won't again fail to censor myself to protect the more fragile of our flock.

Lots of insulting going on there.

I have been discussing Deflategate objectively and openly from the very beginning. I was discussing Jim Irsay's Sunday Night tweets with the nightowls before this was even a story.

About the following video you wrote:

I have seen this but in my mind doesn't explain or refute the experimental results set forth on the plotted points in Tables 29 and 30. In fact, I have not seen any experiments that refute these results other than the carnegie melon patsfan that dunked the footballs in water before conducting the experiment. The MIT guy takes issue with some of the Report's theoretical underpinnings, but I don't believe he attacks the data points in Tables 29 and 30 (just the points, ignore the transient curves).

Several posters responded to this post of yours without you ever once engaging them back in any kind of back and forth.

Later

You dont need to know anything about science to compare the actual measurements with Exponents experimental results.

And, what is the source of the 0.23 difference? According to Tony's post above, Exponent says the balls should have been 11.32-11.52 at the START of halftime. But PSI rises quickly, so that would increase the delta between the actual measurements and the experimental results on which Exponentsm's psi range is based. So I think the assertion that, even using Exponents's numbers, there is only a .23 difference, is false. Am i wrong here? I would be very happy to be.

Also the variability within a single gauge would not explain Tables 29 and 30.

Again, several posters respond to this post you made and go to great, highly informative lengths to help explain to you the source of the .23 difference/talking point.

You nothing. Nothing at all. No back and forth. Just silence.

And finally.

The science doesn't say nothing happened. The science says there is a theory that explains some or all of the pressure drop, but without knowing the inputs to that theory, we don't know definitively whether it explains some or all of the pressure drop. Big difference. Still, doesn't hurt to drop the IGL on the judges one more time just in case they missed it.

These posts make me think you are less about the "adult conversation" and more about poking holes and expressing doubt about people's pro-Patriot Deflategate arguments...

 

[Tony2046]

You are saying the exact same thing I am, from a scientific perspective. Unfortunately, Goodell is free is to look at all the facts and conclude that the balls were deflated. Tom can't win by arguing that the evidence is weak and that no one in their right mind would conclude the balls were deflated. That's a losing argument here. His case would be bolstered, however, if it were scientifically impossible for the balls to have been manually deflated. But that is not the case, and no scientist would claim that to be the case. Thus, we are left with the only mildly compelling, very technical, contract-interpretation arguments set forth in Olson's petition.

My humble opinion. I do respect your argument.

I see a difference between your and Palm Beach's statements. Palm reasons that given the unknown variables and all that is known including the flaws in Exponent's report, there are scenarios which would fully explain the loss of pressure while your opinion is that the science was not able to fully exonerate Brady.

Nothing in the Wells report proves that Brady did anything.

 

[bormio]

Nothing in the Wells report proves that Brady did anything.

Nothing in the Wells Report comes anywhere even close to proving Brady did anything. They took some random facts (in some cases, not even facts) and stitched together a fictional narrative to suit their purposes.