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

[upstater1]

Read Palm Beach Pats Fans' post above. The science is inconclusive. It doesn't rule out foul play. It just fails to prove it.

The science is NOT inconclusive.
The science is conclusive. It conclusively states where the balls should have been given the parameters.

Now, that doesnt mean someone didn't mess with the balls. Science can only tell us where the balls should have been.

But given the fact that the balls were where they should have been, then what is your theory for how the balls might have been tampered with? Are you saying that it is possible that the ball boy let out .1 PSI from each ball in 90 seconds?

Let's kick around this possibility: Why would he let .1 PSI out of the balls?

 

[letekro]

The science is NOT inconclusive.
The science is conclusive. It conclusively states where the balls should have been given the parameters.

Now, that doesnt mean someone didn't mess with the balls. Science can only tell us where the balls should have been.

But given the fact that the balls were where they should have been, then what is your theory for how the balls might have been tampered with? Are you saying that it is possible that the ball boy let out .1 PSI from each ball in 90 seconds?

Let's kick around this possibility: Why would he let .1 PSI out of the balls?

Without knowing the initial PSI, the wetness of the footballs (.1 difference if sprayed with a water bottle, .7 difference if dunked in water per Carnegie Mellon guy), the exact temperature on the field and in the locker room, and the precise moment when each ball was measured, the science is inconclusive. If you don't know the inputs, the IGL can't tell you definitively what happened. This is rudimentary and beyond dispute.

Your .1 number is made up, but let's assume it's accurate.

There are many possible explanations that would account for a .1 psi difference. 3 come immediately to mind:

1. the balls were inflated to 13 or higher and a significant amount of air was let out. On some balls, a little too much, on others a little too little, resulting in average discrepancy of .1.

2. The balls were inflated to 12.5 but Tom really insists on the low side of the range so McNally let out an additional "hiss" on each ball, just to be on the safe side. A fat man with a needle is not precise, so some balls did not deflate to any material extent and some went a little below 12.5.

3. The psi was variable between 12.4 and 13.0 and McNally took out roughly the same amount on each ball, resulting in 12.15-12.65, with an average of 12.4.

 

[Galeb]

Without knowing the initial PSI, the wetness of the footballs (.1 difference if sprayed with a water bottle, .7 difference if dunked in water per Carnegie Mellon guy), the exact temperature on the field and in the locker room, and the precise moment when each ball was measured, the science is inconclusive. If you don't know the inputs, the IGL can't tell you definitively what happened. This is rudimentary and beyond dispute.

Your .1 number is made up, but let's assume it's accurate.

There are many possible explanations that would account for a .1 psi difference. 3 come immediately to mind:

1. the balls were inflated to 13 or higher and a significant amount of air was let out. On some balls, a little too much, on others a little too little, resulting in average discrepancy of .1.

2. The balls were inflated to 12.5 but Tom really insists on the low side of the range so McNally let out an additional "hiss" on each ball, just to be on the safe side. A fat man with a needle is not precise, so some balls did not deflate to any material extent and some went a little below 12.5.

3. The psi was variable between 12.4 and 13.0 and McNally took out roughly the same amount on each ball, resulting in 12.15-12.65, with an average of 12.4.

Here, drop this.



My seat is still firmly entrenched at the kids table as well.

 

[letekro]

Here, drop this.

View attachment 13044

My seat is still firmly entrenched at the kids table as well.

 

[Galeb]

That is awesome!

 

[PatsDeb]

Curran had a good short piece (2/3 of this is quotes from the draft brief) pointing out that Brady's fate depends on Olson being able to convince CA2 (or, ultimately, SCOTUS) that this has bearing outside of football:

Brady's appeal hinges on judges believing his case has relevance beyond NFL

Agreed. It's a slim shot.

 

[ANGR89]

Read Palm Beach Pats Fans' post above. The science is inconclusive. It doesn't rule out foul play. It just fails to prove it.

oh dear lord.....so than with this logic the Colts can't be ruled out for tampering with their balls since they were under the 12.5 also.

 

[Tony2046]

If exponent used 71 as the locker room temp and used the gauge Walt said he used to the best if his recollection, the balls show no deflation other than what is normal. Why they used 67 as a locker room temp when the hvac is always set between 71-74 and the room was full of people, well I think we know the answer.

I've been looking specifically at that for the last few days and how it relates to the transient curves used in the game day simulation charts @letekro questioned. That and how they misused the "master" gauge readings in a chart with transient curves established with standard gauge readings.

Eg, they set one game day simulation chart using 71 deg (non logo) and the other chart using 67 (Logo). Why??

While I'm at it, their variation for wet/dry Patriots footballs in the non-logo chart is a little more than 0.2 psi while in their Logo chart it is more than 0.5. They are demonstrating gauge readings. Wet footballs should show the same pressure loss window regardless of which gauge was used. Or am I missing something?



Lastly, they incorrectly plot "Master" gauge average readings for specific start times during their game day simulation on transient curves (or a predicted window of inflation range) that were set using the non-logo gauge in one chart and the Logo gauge in the other. IOW, If you know that one gauge reads differently than the other, how can you plot a reading of one gauge on a curve based on readings of the other gauge. Of course they will be off.

This was done to fit the control readings (the Colt's footballs) into that transient window and to determine the variation of pressure loss differences between both teams footballs BUT if they had set the two transient tables correctly there is a more likely scenario in which the Pats footballs and the Colts footballs both fit the predicted window established by the transient curves.

 

[Ring 6]

It is evidence and it is relevant. Your explanations go to the weight of the evidence.

Then your definition says that everything is evidence of everything which is silly.
Something that occurs but had no value in determining whether or not something happened is not evidence. Those items have no value in determining what happened.
Someone speaking of deflation in May is not evidence that balls were deflated in January. A conversation about being stressed is not evidence is an event that it makes zero reference to.

There is also no proof that balls were deflated so evidence of a conspiracy that didn't happen is not evidence.

 

[upstater1]

Without knowing the initial PSI, the wetness of the footballs (.1 difference if sprayed with a water bottle, .7 difference if dunked in water per Carnegie Mellon guy), the exact temperature on the field and in the locker room, and the precise moment when each ball was measured, the science is inconclusive. If you don't know the inputs, the IGL can't tell you definitively what happened. This is rudimentary and beyond dispute."

The NFL stipulated the inputs. What are you talking about here? The referees claimed they inflated to 12.5 PSI. Are you honestly not aware of this?

Your .1 number is made up, but let's assume it's accurate.

Huh? It should be fairly obvious to everyone why I used the hypothetical of .1 PSI. It is BECAUSE the NFL claims the balls began at 12.5 PSI, and their end point was at most .1 PSI from where they would have otherwise been determined to be by science given the parameters (i.e. where the NFL said the balls started, 12.5 PSI, and where the refs said they ended up at halftime).

There are many possible explanations that would account for a .1 psi difference. 3 come immediately to mind:

1. the balls were inflated to 13 or higher and a significant amount of air was let out. On some balls, a little too much, on others a little too little, resulting in average discrepancy of .1.

The NFL said they were at 12.5 PSI. Are you saying the NFL is lying?

2. The balls were inflated to 12.5 but Tom really insists on the low side of the range so McNally let out an additional "hiss" on each ball, just to be on the safe side. A fat man with a needle is not precise, so some balls did not deflate to any material extent and some went a little below 12.5.

This is laughable!!!! Come on! You really think it is possible he let out .1 PSI? How in the world did he manage this? Have you ever let air out of a ball? Some people were saying that even sticking a needle into the ball lets out that much, and he's now trying to let out .1 PSI. Do you even believe what you write?

3. The psi was variable between 12.4 and 13.0 and McNally took out roughly the same amount on each ball, resulting in 12.15-12.65, with an average of 12.4.

Not sure what this refers to, but it is pretty clear that in the rest of your answers that you are not aware that the NFL claims they were told by the refs that the balls were checked at 12.5 PSI prior to the game.

 

[Ring 6]

Read Palm Beach Pats Fans' post above. The science is inconclusive. It doesn't rule out foul play. It just fails to prove it.

We also cannot rule out that you are not a child molestor but that doesn't mean you are.
If you seriously think the standard can be that if you can't prove innocence of any charge when there is not proof of guilt I'm not sure what to tell you other than wake up there is a world going on out there.

 

[letekro]

I've been looking specifically at that for the last few days and how it relates to the transient curves used in the game day simulation charts @letekro questioned. That and how they misused the "master" gauge readings in a chart with transient curves established with standard gauge readings.

Eg, they set one game day simulation chart using 71 deg (non logo) and the other chart using 67 (Logo). Why??

While I'm at it, their variation for wet/dry Patriots footballs in the non-logo chart is a little more than 0.2 psi while in their Logo chart it is more than 0.5. They are demonstrating gauge readings. Wet footballs should show the same pressure loss window regardless of which gauge was used. Or am I missing something?

View attachment 13043

Lastly, they incorrectly plot "Master" gauge average readings for specific start times during their game day simulation on transient curves (or a predicted window of inflation range) that were set using the non-logo gauge in one chart and the Logo gauge in the other. IOW, If you know that one gauge reads differently than the other, how can you plot a reading of one gauge on a curve based on readings of the other gauge. Of course they will be off.

This was done to fit the control readings (the Colt's footballs) into that transient window and to determine the variation of pressure loss differences between both teams footballs BUT if they had set the two transient tables correctly there is a more likely scenario in which the Pats footballs and the Colts footballs both fit the predicted window established by the transient curves.

I really don't understand any of this. The transient curve analysis is very flawed per the MIT prof, and I accept his opinion. My questions all along have not been on the transient analysis, but on the experimental results, shown as dots on Tables 29 and 30, then comparing those with the straight lines on those tables, representing the averages of the actual measurements of the Pats and Colts footballs at the AFCCG. There is an obvious discrepancy there which I haven't seen explained by the MIT prof or anyone else.

 

[Joker]

stop clowning yourself. how many times are you going to puke up "table 29 and 30!"? another 5000 times? Just say it...YOU think Brady's a cheater...otherwise STFU with your "tables!" B.S.

 

[Danger Zone]

So simplify the equation.

Do we have any data that doesn't involve footballs heating/regaining equilibrium?

We do:

The football the Colts intercepted was measured 3 times: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi (.3 psi variance between 3 measurements)

Exponent predicts the Patriot footballs should have been between 11.52 and 11.32 psi...


So why again would the Patriots have this diabolic plan to deflate footballs after inspection and not avail themselves of the opportunity to use a deflated-easier-to-grip-less-likely-to-fumble football when they know they needed it most?

 

[signbabybrady]

The science is NOT inconclusive.
The science is conclusive. It conclusively states where the balls should have been given the parameters.

Now, that doesnt mean someone didn't mess with the balls. Science can only tell us where the balls should have been.

But given the fact that the balls were where they should have been, then what is your theory for how the balls might have been tampered with? Are you saying that it is possible that the ball boy let out .1 PSI from each ball in 90 seconds?

Let's kick around this possibility: Why would he let .1 PSI out of the balls?

I've been thinking about this for some 300-400 days now and one thing I wonder about given how dug in an their heels the NFL is makes me wonder if there is something nefarious they did that would explain them seemingly knowing something was done. Let's assume they intentionally inflated the balls up well above the legal limits in hopes of throwing off TB like in the Jets game as an attempt to create parity and promote a young star in Luck.

Brady would still be clueless as the Ball Boys just getting his back without him knowing. Explains their silence. Explains why the science wouldn't work as the NFL had to go with 12.5 or admit they over pumped them.

I hate the theory cause it leaves our ball boys having done something after ref inspection but explains why the NFL would be so stubborn on something so asinine.

Feel free to flame me and blow up this crappy theory.

 

[Froob]

Without knowing the initial PSI, the wetness of the footballs (.1 difference if sprayed with a water bottle, .7 difference if dunked in water per Carnegie Mellon guy), the exact temperature on the field and in the locker room, and the precise moment when each ball was measured, the science is inconclusive. If you don't know the inputs, the IGL can't tell you definitively what happened. This is rudimentary and beyond dispute.

Your .1 number is made up, but let's assume it's accurate.

There are many possible explanations that would account for a .1 psi difference. 3 come immediately to mind:

1. the balls were inflated to 13 or higher and a significant amount of air was let out. On some balls, a little too much, on others a little too little, resulting in average discrepancy of .1.

2. The balls were inflated to 12.5 but Tom really insists on the low side of the range so McNally let out an additional "hiss" on each ball, just to be on the safe side. A fat man with a needle is not precise, so some balls did not deflate to any material extent and some went a little below 12.5.

3. The psi was variable between 12.4 and 13.0 and McNally took out roughly the same amount on each ball, resulting in 12.15-12.65, with an average of 12.4.

A hiss of air lol? Yeah that'll make a difference.

 

[letekro]

Not sure what this refers to, but it is pretty clear that in the rest of your answers that you are not aware that the NFL claims they were told by the refs that the balls were checked at 12.5 PSI prior to the game.

1. Since you were using hypothetical figures, I did not think we were talking about a world bound by the Wells Report. I thought you were asking me for possibilities about what might have actually happened, assuming a .1 psi difference. I certainly don't take the officials' word as gospel. Their heads were on the chopping block too. That being said, even if the officials gauged the balls, there is enough variability from reading to reading that they were likely not all 12.5.

2. Show me in the Wells/Exponent Report where it says the balls were .1 (or .23, which is another number I have seen bandied about here) off from where they should have been. I would be most interested to see this. Since everyone on this board has told me that this information is in the Wells/Exponent Report it should be the easiest thing in the world to copy into a message and send to me.

3. I find it very unlikely that McNally went to the bathroom to take out 0.1 psi. Still possible though, especially because he is a moron.

 

[upstater1]

I've been thinking about this for some 300-400 days now and one thing I wonder about given how dug in an their heels the NFL is makes me wonder if there is something nefarious they did that would explain them seemingly knowing something was done. Let's assume they intentionally inflated the balls up well above the legal limits in hopes of throwing off TB like in the Jets game as an attempt to create parity and promote a young star in Luck.

Brady would still be clueless as the Ball Boys just getting his back without him knowing. Explains their silence. Explains why the science wouldn't work as the NFL had to go with 12.5 or admit they over pumped them.

I hate the theory cause it leaves our ball boys having done something after ref inspection but explains why the NFL would be so stubborn on something so asinine.

Feel free to flame me and blow up this crappy theory.

I have thought of this another way. Brady might have told them to never let the balls be 16 PSI again.

The ballboy checks the balls, and they are all in spec. Voila. 90 seconds.

I don't believe the NFL on any of this frankly, but legally speaking, the NFL has already stated the balls were at 12.5.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I've been thinking about this for some 300-400 days now and one thing I wonder about given how dug in an their heels the NFL is makes me wonder if there is something nefarious they did that would explain them seemingly knowing something was done. Let's assume they intentionally inflated the balls up well above the legal limits in hopes of throwing off TB like in the Jets game as an attempt to create parity and promote a young star in Luck.

Brady would still be clueless as the Ball Boys just getting his back without him knowing. Explains their silence. Explains why the science wouldn't work as the NFL had to go with 12.5 or admit they over pumped them.

I hate the theory cause it leaves our ball boys having done something after ref inspection but explains why the NFL would be so stubborn on something so asinine.

Feel free to flame me and blow up this crappy theory.

So your theory is that McNall/Jaz or the refs over-inflated the balls?

 

[ANGR89]

just read where Adam Schefter tweeted that pats have filed some brief supporting Bradys and nflpa appeal, anyone know anything about this?