sry to waste a thread on this, but I have a question

[Lavictoire]

That would be an admission of the official's complete incompetence.

Or a sting.

 

[Deus Irae]

Or a sting.

No.

It is/is not a sting regardless.

The significance of Anderson being incompetent goes towards his PSI measurements that weren't written down. This is a guy who, according to the report itself:

Failed to write down the PSI numbers, so can't actually verify what any of them were
Couldn't remember whether or not he'd marked a kicking ball
Let the balls out of his sight and, yet, still allowed them in play without checking them instead of going to the backup balls, even though he'd been given the heads up about possible shenanigans with the footballs.

 

[Lavictoire]

No.

It is/is not a sting regardless.

The significance of Anderson being incompetent goes towards his PSI measurements that weren't written down. This is a guy who, according to the report itself:

Failed to write down the PSI numbers, so can't actually verify what any of them were
Couldn't remember whether or not he'd marked a kicking ball
Let the balls out of his sight and, yet, still allowed them in play without checking them instead of going to the backup balls, even though he'd been given the heads up about possible shenanigans with the footballs.

Yeah, as far as the PSI stuff, the whole case gets thrown out in a sane world as soon as we find out there are no recorded measurements to start with. No base line to work from? We are working from memory?

 

[ChesBay]

The most 'damning' evidence in the report is the balls going missing, and McNally taking them to the bathroom. That's really the only thing that's not easily explained away.

That's true, but as said elsewhere in the forum, why didn't McNally feel comfortable taking 3, 4, or even 5 minutes in that bathroom? Certainly there was no overarching pressure to "do the dirty deed" in 100 seconds (however I would see something like 10 minutes as being too long). That's why I believe all the so-called evidence points to something entirely different.....TB's obsessive insistence that the balls be at their lowest possible pressure (12.5 psi). Would TB later complain if a spot check on the sideline showed them to be at 11.7 psi...due to environmental conditions? Probably not...as long as they had earlier "passed muster" with the umpire. Did the Vikings worry that warming up the balls on the sideline would alter their psi level, potentially to an illegal level? Absolutely not, ostensibly because their balls had already "passed muster".

This is why it's imperative to invoke some "right to left thinking" in this entire investigatory process. And nothing contained in the Wells Report refutes such a theory. In fact the preponderance of information (I won't dignify it by calling it evidence) would support such a hypothesis. My comment to the "haters", who suggest it's been a longstanding practice by the Patriots, is that I agree with them....but only as follows. The Patriots have a QB who likes...no, insists on....having the ball at the lowest allowable psi level, but they've been confounded in this pursuit by a set of umpires whose shoddy and inconsistent methodologies for inspecting balls can be conclusively verified. To that end, the information in the Wells report does support this finding about the collective behavior of the umpires (to the point where it can now qualify as evidence), but it does not support the accusation that TB...or the Patriots...pursued a longstanding strategy of altering the balls below the minimum allowable level.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's true, but as said elsewhere in the forum, why didn't McNally feel comfortable taking 3, 4, or even 5 minutes in that bathroom? Certainly there was no overarching pressure to "do the dirty deed" in 100 seconds (however I would see something like 10 minutes as being too long). That's why I believe all the so-called evidence points to something entirely different.....TB's obsessive insistence that the balls be at their lowest possible pressure (12.5 psi). Would TB later complain if a spot check on the sideline showed them to be at 11.7 psi...due to environmental conditions? Probably not...as long as they had earlier "passed muster" with the umpire. Did the Vikings worry that warming up the balls on the sideline would alter their psi level, potentially to an illegal level? Absolutely not, ostensibly because their balls had already "passed muster".

This is why it's imperative to invoke some "right to left thinking" in this entire investigatory process. And nothing contained in the Wells Report refutes such a theory. In fact the preponderance of information (I won't dignify it by calling it evidence) would support such a hypothesis. My comment to the "haters", who suggest it's been a longstanding practice by the Patriots, is that I agree with them....but only as follows. The Patriots have a QB who likes...no, insists on....having the ball at the lowest allowable psi level, but they've been confounded in this pursuit by a set of umpires whose shoddy and inconsistent methodologies for inspecting balls can be conclusively verified. To that end, the information in the Wells report does support this finding about the collective behavior of the umpires (to the point where it can now qualify as evidence), but it does not support the accusation that TB...or the Patriots...pursued a longstanding strategy of altering the balls below the minimum allowable level.

Fear of getting caught would explain McNally's haste.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Yeah, as far as the PSI stuff, the whole case gets thrown out in a sane world as soon as we find out there are no recorded measurements to start with. No base line to work from? We are working from memory?

You realize that people are convicted/acquitted and people win/lose lawsuits "working from memory" every day? Hell, all eyewitness testimony is "working from memory".

Courts, etc. handle "working from memory" all the time. "Working from memory" is not itself a reason for something to be disregarded. Demonstrating to the factfinder that the person recounting the memory is not credible/has a bad memory/etc. is how you get it to be disregarded.

 

[ChesBay]

Fear of getting caught would explain McNally's haste.

Or the pressing need to get those balls to the game field where they were needed....despite the equally pressing need to take a wiz, before he'd get another chance at halftime. I can identify with that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Or the pressing need to get those balls to the game field where they were needed....despite the equally pressing need to take a wiz, before he'd get another chance at halftime. I can identify with that.

Yes, who'd have thought that a man taking his balls to the bathroom would become potentially damning evidence?

 

[hambone1818]

You realize that people are convicted/acquitted and people win/lose lawsuits "working from memory" every day? Hell, all eyewitness testimony is "working from memory".

Courts, etc. handle "working from memory" all the time. "Working from memory" is not itself a reason for something to be disregarded. Demonstrating to the factfinder that the person recounting the memory is not credible/has a bad memory/etc. is how you get it to be disregarded.

That's all well and good, but in this case the Wells report believed Anderson about his pre-game measurements (12.5 for Pats, 13.0-13.1 for the Colts) and took him at his word on other information--without questioning his judgment to not re-measure on the sidelines or use the practice balls when he was supposedly alerted to possible tampering with the official game balls. Yet they didn't believe him about what gauge he used and pushed him on it, because the lower gauge (the one he says he DIDN'T use) is the one that points to deflation by the Patriots.

There's so much faulty and outright biased logic in the report. Thankfully some media outlets are starting to dig behind the obvious headline grabbers and realize the glaring issues with the report and, by extension, it's conclusions.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

If McNally changed the pressure of the footballs, the data suggests that one of two things is true:

a) he took out about 0.26 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.39 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law. This ignores the effect of water on the footballs, which probably should not be ignored, and could account for all of the "extra" 0.26 psi drop

or

b) he put in about 0.12 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.01 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Yes, the data does not even make it clear whether he took air out, put air in, or neither.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Another thing that irks me is the "gotcha" conclusion that Brady said he didn't even know who McNally was.

Mr. McNally works 8 days a year. Home game days, Period.

Tom could know him by appearance but not by name.

Example: I work in an office. A janitor comes by every day at 5PM to empty my trash can. He says hi to me, and I return the greeting. On Fridays I ask him to have a great weekend, or he asks me the same. On Mondays I ask him how the weekend went, or he asks me the same.

But... I do not know his name.

Let's say his name is "Mr Jones"

If someone asked me who "Mr Jones" was, I'd say that I don't know him.

If someone asked me who the friendly, short, older janitor who works in my building is, I'd say that I know him pretty well, that he's indeed very friendly, and that he does a great job.

 

[ChesBay]

If McNally changed the pressure of the footballs, the data suggests that one of two things is true:

a) he took out about 0.26 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.39 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law. This ignores the effect of water on the footballs, which probably should not be ignored, and could account for all of the "extra" 0.26 psi drop

or

b) he put in about 0.12 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.01 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Yes, the data does not even make it clear whether he took air out, put air in, or neither.

Exactly! Which is why I contend that he just as easily could have been checking a few of the balls to ensure that the umpire didn't over-pressurize them (as happened in the Jets game), lest he suffer the wrath of TB (and this a playoff game, no less!). Then he relieved himself and went out to the field.

 

[JJC]

The most 'damning' evidence in the report is the balls going missing, and McNally taking them to the bathroom. That's really the only thing that's not easily explained away.

It's more probable than not that the somewhat overweight, 48 year old McNally did exactly what he said he did in the bathroom - take a leak. Anyone in the NFL office should be at least generally aware that overweight, middle aged men often exhibit BPH and may need to urinate more often as a result. 50% of men have histologic evidence of BPH by age 50 years. Now, if the bathroom was located on a grassy knoll, I might have to reconsider what is more probable than not.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's more probable than not that the somewhat overweight, 48 year old McNally did exactly what he said he did in the bathroom - take a leak. Anyone in the NFL office should be at least generally aware that overweight, middle aged men often exhibit BPH and may need to urinate more often as a result. 50% of men have histologic evidence of BPH by age 50 years. Now, if the bathroom was located on a grassy knoll, I might have to reconsider what is more probable than not.

Your argument would be stronger if McNally hadn't reportedly been inconsistent in his testimony. One can't use a urinal in a bathroom without a urinal, for example.

McNally could have used "Hell, I went to the bathroom. I don't remember every bloody action I did in there", and that would have been a better response.

 

[Lavictoire]

You realize that people are convicted/acquitted and people win/lose lawsuits "working from memory" every day? Hell, all eyewitness testimony is "working from memory".

Courts, etc. handle "working from memory" all the time. "Working from memory" is not itself a reason for something to be disregarded. Demonstrating to the factfinder that the person recounting the memory is not credible/has a bad memory/etc. is how you get it to be disregarded.

True, but this was the scientific investigation part and science is supposed to input hard data that is observed and recorded.

 

[eom]

also, I saw someone mention that the non-logo gauge is supposedly synched up with some calibrated 'master' gauge, while the logo gauge is nearly a half pound over on it's readings.

why would anderson even be using the logo gauge at all?

I'm sure the actual answer is that nobody gaf about a half pound of air, but what's the nutty excuse?

 

[JJC]

And it doesn't have to be, its a fact. McNally acted improperly by taking the balls without the referees permission then stopping the the bathroom on the way to the field. The Patriots are guilty of that and should be fined accordingly (precedent suggests $25k would be about right). That still isn't evidence that any tampering occurred though.

I question this. The rule states what the acceptable pressure range for the balls needs to be. I don't recall seeing a procedure for ball handling in any of this. Rule 2 does not say that McNally cannot take the balls out to the field once they have been approved.

Rule 2. Section 1. Paragraph 3. The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.
​

Questions:

• Did the referee just whether the balls were in compliance?
• Were the balls under the supervision of the referee until they were delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game?
• What is the definition of just prior? If the game was scheduled to start at 6:40PM, then is 6:30PM just prior? Is 6:39 just prior? What has been standard operating procedure in the past?
• Who is the ball attendant? Is that McNally?

Nowhere does it say that they must be under the official's supervision until the actual start of the game. So, there is some acceptable gap defined as just prior. Are we talking minutes? Seconds? Seems that this is independent of place, since prior defines when, not where.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The Official Playing Rules (which is where that is from) are not the only rules involved. You'd have to see other things such as the Game Operations Manual (which, sadly, unlike the rulebook is not available in its entirety online) to know what all the relevant rules that must be complied with are.

 

[eom]

I really think bird leaving with the balls is entirely irrelevant.
the case has obviously been made that this was not a one time thing, and they had been doing this over a period of time.

did bird leave early with the balls in the balt game?
did he leave early with the balls and lock himself in the bathroom every home game?

or was it some incredible coincidence that he happened to leave early to do his nefarious deeds on the one day they were running some wacky sting?

I don't see any connection at all between bird leaving with the balls unescorted and this alleged crime.

 

[ChoWZa]

The report failed to establish McNally ever did this before. So him going to the bathroom to take a leak is plausible. If he did it every game he'd need a medical history of bladder problems to get this back into the plausible realm. The suspicion is that the Patriots were doing this on a regular basis but you have a guy taking balls into a bathroom one time?

When you goto the bathroom in the airport (when you're by yourself) do you leave your luggage outside the bathroom?