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

[Tony2046]

Tony, these are transient curves. I"m talking about the raw data on tables 29 and 30. If I am missing your point, fill me in.

Edit: LOL @Wheelman.

Sure.

 

[signbabybrady]

Interesting theory. I don't think it's preposterous but you might be giving the refs and the league a little too much credit for hatching a diabolical scheme as collectively I swear they can barely put batteries in a flashlight

In this theory they did it at least once before to try to help Jets win in the infamous watermelon game. And it accounts for their stupidity in thinking they could do it as much as they want.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In this theory they did it at least once before to try to help Jets win in the infamous watermelon game. And it accounts for their stupidity in thinking they could do it as much as they want.

"The Watermelon Game"

LMAO.

 

[Tony2046]

In this theory they did it at least once before to try to help Jets win in the infamous watermelon game. And it accounts for their stupidity in thinking they could do it as much as they want.

That is definitely an interesting theory.

Who was the Ref during the Jets game?

Carl and Keith have some answering to do.


Jets Game--------------------------------------------Colts game

 

[Galeb]

What would it mean?

"I'm done talking"

"You, my friend are a meathead"

"Go away"

Usually it means "Really?"

But sometimes it just means fugetaboutit

 

[signbabybrady]

That is definitely an interesting theory.

Who was the Ref during the Jets game?

Carl and Keith have some answering to do.


Jets Game--------------------------------------------Colts game

Boom like an onion the more you peel the more it stinks.

 

[letekro]

Sure.

This is interesting but just compare the dots in figure 29 (representing the experimental results) with the colts and patriots averages. Ignore the shaded curves. Even the T +2min reading is above the Pats averages (which would include warming over 5 or 6 minutes or more). Can the discrepancy be explained by wetness of the footballs? Maybe, but maybe not---there is no way to know how wet the balls were. The carnegie mellon guy (pats fan) accounted for the discrepancy but he had to literally dunk the footballs in a tub to get the desired result. The balls probably weren't soaked like that. There is a guy on youtube called MIT pats fan that conducts the experiment on dry footballs and the Pats ball was 11.1 initial and 11.7 at T +5, which is right in line with the Exponent experiment taking into account -.1 psi for the balls being slightly wet in the Exponent study.

Summary: all can be explained if the balls were soaking wet. All cannot be explained if they were not.

MIT pats fan experiment:

carnegie mellon pats fan experiment:

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Forget all the MIT experiments, a fifth grader disproved deflategate. This is how dumb this whole thing is.

 

[Tony2046]

This is interesting but just compare the dots in figure 29 (representing the experimental results) with the colts and patriots averages. Ignore the shaded curves. Even the T +2min reading is above the Pats averages (which would include warming over 5 or 6 minutes or more). Can the discrepancy be explained by wetness of the footballs? Maybe, but maybe not---there is no way to know how wet the balls were. The carnegie mellon guy (pats fan) accounted for the discrepancy but he had to literally dunk the footballs in a tub to get the desired result. The balls probably weren't soaked like that. There is a guy on youtube called MIT pats fan that conducts the experiment on dry footballs and the Pats ball was 11.1 initial and 11.7 at T +5, which is right in line with the Exponent experiment taking into account -.1 psi for the balls being slightly wet in the Exponent study.

Summary: all can be explained if the balls were soaking wet. All cannot be explained if they were not.

MIT pats fan experiment:

carnegie mellon pats fan experiment:

I'm going to check into some things regarding wet footballs.

One other thing about the last chart that I find interesting is when looking at both charts which gauge do think was used?

One fits the timeline and both team average measurements fit nicely into the transient curves while the other does not.

One chart seems to imply that they started measuring the Pats footballs at about the 3-4 minute time frame and the Colts footballs around the 10-12 minute time frame. Why did they only measure 4 Colt footballs? Because they ran out of time. Makes sense right?

The other chart would have you believe they started measuring the Colt footballs at about the 6-8 minute time frame which should leave you to wonder why they could not measure all 12 with that much time available.

Just some thoughts.

 

[NashuaPats]

I'm going to check into some things regarding wet footballs.

One other thing about the last chart that I find interesting is when looking at both charts which gauge do think was used?

One fits the timeline and both team average measurements fit nicely into the transient curves while the other does not.

One chart seems to imply that they started measuring the Pats footballs at about the 3-4 minute time frame and the Colts footballs around the 10-12 minute time frame. Why did they only measure 4 Colt footballs? Because they ran out of time. Makes sense right?

The other chart would have you believe they started measuring the Colt footballs at about the 6-8 minute time frame which should leave you to wonder why they could not measure all 12 with that much time available.

Just some thoughts.

Ted Snyder, the dean from Yale who testified at the arbitration hearing, did an excellent job talking about the timing at half time and how a more logical timeline than what Exponent used, put the Pats ball in line with the Colts balls.

Regarding the wet balls, they would not have been uniformly wet. It only started raining towards the end of the half. Most of the balls likely never came out of the bag. For the balls that were in the field of play, they would still vary a lot. The Patriots ran Blount several times during that last drive. When he gets tackled and lands on the ball, the ball is going to have hundreds of pounds of pressure pushing it into the wet grass and therefore getting soaked. So when you look at the measurements at the half, you would expect a few balls to have lower pressure by a few tenths which is exactly what happened.

 

[Tony2046]

Ted Snyder, the dean from Yale who testified at the arbitration hearing, did an excellent job talking about the timing at half time and how a more logical timeline than what Exponent used, put the Pats ball in line with the Colts balls.

Regarding the wet balls, they would not have been uniformly wet. It only started raining towards the end of the half. Most of the balls likely never came out of the bag. For the balls that were in the field of play, they would still vary a lot. The Patriots ran Blount several times during that last drive. When he gets tackled and lands on the ball, the ball is going to have hundreds of pounds of pressure pushing it into the wet grass and therefore getting soaked. So when you look at the measurements at the half, you would expect a few balls to have lower pressure by a few tenths which is exactly what happened.

Excellent points. I'm sure that a spray bottle was not the ideal method to replicate real game time conditions.

What I am looking for is how much would the volume of a football expand when wet.

Using Anontoms Law does not account for a change in volume which the Well's report assumes is constant. Others state the the increase in volume is minimal while the Professor from MIT mentions 3%.

On top of that we do not know the exact temperature of the rain that day and could have been much colder than the air temp.

 

[letekro]

Ted Snyder, the dean from Yale who testified at the arbitration hearing, did an excellent job talking about the timing at half time and how a more logical timeline than what Exponent used, put the Pats ball in line with the Colts balls.

Regarding the wet balls, they would not have been uniformly wet. It only started raining towards the end of the half. Most of the balls likely never came out of the bag. For the balls that were in the field of play, they would still vary a lot. The Patriots ran Blount several times during that last drive. When he gets tackled and lands on the ball, the ball is going to have hundreds of pounds of pressure pushing it into the wet grass and therefore getting soaked. So when you look at the measurements at the half, you would expect a few balls to have lower pressure by a few tenths which is exactly what happened.

The below is from Kessler's opening statement at the Appeal hearing. It is almost verbatim to what I have been saying throughout this thread and getting hammered for. My point is only that the science doesn't tell us what happened. Ted Wells said that in the Report, Kessler says it below, he states that Snyder comes to that conclusion as well. It is what it is. Since the science is inconclusive (because so many inputs are unknown), you are left with the texts as the entire universe of evidence. Patsfans thinks the evidence is worthless, but their opinion is irrelevant. Goodell claims he sees something nefarious in them and per the CBA his word is final barring procedural defects (which is the entirety of the NFLPA's legal arguments--procedural defects). We would be in a different universe from an optics perspective if the science PROVED that nothing happened. But, alas, it doesn't.

And what [Snyder] is going to explain and this is not, by the way, the fault of Mr. Wells, it's not the fault of Exponent, okay, there was simply so many unknowns about how the testing was done -- and I am going to explain that in a second -- that nobody is able to give an opinion as to whether these balls were tampered with or not.

We don't know the temperature in the room at the time the ball was tested, a whole variety of factors, which would directly affect this result. So we know there are unknowns. So what did the Snyder team do? They said, okay, we are just going to test the different scenarios. What happens if you vary this which is an unknown? What happens if you vary this which is an unknown? And what they found is the result change in such a way, in other words, the unknowns matter that the only conclusion you could come to is that you can't tell. You can't come to a statistically significant result that is reliable here.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Excellent points. I'm sure that a spray bottle was not the ideal method to replicate real game time conditions.

What I am looking for is how much would the volume of a football expand when wet.

Using Anontoms Law does not account for a change in volume which the Well's report assumes is constant. Others state the the increase in volume is minimal while the Professor from MIT mentions 3%.

On top of that we do not know the exact temperature of the rain that day and could have been much colder than the air temp.

If someone has the weather report for that day and found out the ceiling you could come damn close.

 

[NashuaPats]

The below is from Kessler's opening statement at the Appeal hearing. It is almost verbatim to what I have been saying throughout this thread and getting hammered for. My point is only that the science doesn't tell us what happened. Ted Wells said that in the Report, Kessler says it below, he states that Snyder comes to that conclusion as well. It is what it is. Since the science is inconclusive (because so many inputs are unknown), you are left with the texts as the entire universe of evidence. Patsfans thinks the evidence is worthless, but their opinion is irrelevant. Goodell claims he sees something nefarious in them and per the CBA his word is final barring procedural defects (which is the entirety of the NFLPA's legal arguments--procedural defects). We would be in a different universe from an optics perspective if the science PROVED that nothing happened. But, alas, it doesn't.

And what [Snyder] is going to explain and this is not, by the way, the fault of Mr. Wells, it's not the fault of Exponent, okay, there was simply so many unknowns about how the testing was done -- and I am going to explain that in a second -- that nobody is able to give an opinion as to whether these balls were tampered with or not.

We don't know the temperature in the room at the time the ball was tested, a whole variety of factors, which would directly affect this result. So we know there are unknowns. So what did the Snyder team do? They said, okay, we are just going to test the different scenarios. What happens if you vary this which is an unknown? What happens if you vary this which is an unknown? And what they found is the result change in such a way, in other words, the unknowns matter that the only conclusion you could come to is that you can't tell. You can't come to a statistically significant result that is reliable here.

You are getting hammered because each of the points you have raised has been explained to you many times in this thread and others. When people make their point poorly or get something wrong, you jump all over them. When people explain things well, you ignore them. Then several pages later or in another thread, you raise the same points as if no one had an explanation for them. Also, these points you have raised were discussed endlessly last summer and have been supported by acclaimed scientists. Regarding Kessler, he was not digging into the science and evidence. It would have been nice if he could have brought in a scientist to hash through it, but that's not what his case was about.

 

[Danger Zone]

You are getting hammered because each of the points you have raised has been explained to you many times in this thread and others. When people make their point poorly or get something wrong, you jump all over them. When people explain things well, you ignore them. Then several pages later or in another thread, you raise the same points as if no one had an explanation for them. Also, these points you have raised were discussed endlessly last summer and have been supported by acclaimed scientists. Regarding Kessler, he was not digging into the science and evidence. It would have been nice if he could have brought in a scientist to hash through it, but that's not what his case was about.

This is exactly the pattern I see going on as well. Well said.

 

[letekro]

You are getting hammered because each of the points you have raised has been explained to you many times in this thread and others. When people make their point poorly or get something wrong, you jump all over them. When people explain things well, you ignore them. Then several pages later or in another thread, you raise the same points as if no one had an explanation for them. Also, these points you have raised were discussed endlessly last summer and have been supported by acclaimed scientists. Regarding Kessler, he was not digging into the science and evidence. It would have been nice if he could have brought in a scientist to hash through it, but that's not what his case was about.

My points are these. They are very simple. Please just refer me to the responsive post number and I will read it and respond.

1. The "science" cannot determine whether or not there was human tampering with the balls. The hand-picked expert that Kessler brought with him to the Appeal hearing says as much below.

Reisner: Exactly, which is why the Ideal Gas Law itself only has theoretical applicability to this problem and not practical applicability, because the balls were not measured at some frozen temperature at the end of halftime outside, but had an opportunity to warm to some degree, fair?

Snyder: I think that's a fair point.

Reisner: In any event, you concede that if the non-logo gauge was used pre-game, application of the Ideal Gas Law cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements, correct?

Snyder: You are talking about the analog to -- I just want to be clear -- the analog to --

Reisner: Your criticism doesn't apply to the use of the non-logo gauges used pre-game, correct?

Snyder: That's correct. This is their structure. The mistake on the inconsistent master gauge conversion is only substantively important under the assumption that the logo gauge was used, not under the assumption that the non-logo gauge was used.

In other words, whether the logo gauge or non-logo gauge was used makes a critical difference to the ultimate conclusion. Ditto the wetness of the balls, when each ball was measured, temperatures in the room, temperatures outside, on and on. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE KNOWN, THEREFORE THE IDEAL GAS LAW IS OF LIMITED UTILITY--IT GETS US SOME OF THE WAY TO THE ANSWER, BUT NOT ALL THE WAY.

2. Since the science is inconclusive, the only evidence is the text messages, testimony, and video of McNally going into the bathroom.

3. Because of 1 and 2, you have the Commissioner making a judgment call on some vaguely nefarious-sounding texts and badly timed bathroom breaks. To a judge on the Second Circuit that is not able to go through the facts to the level we are, he may not feel there is some grand injustice against Brady going on, which may color his view of the legal issues. On the other hand, if the science really did PROVE nothing happened--that foul play was a statistical impossibility--I think that would change everything. But that's not what we have here.

 

[letekro]

This is exactly the pattern I see going on as well. Well said.

Give me a post number. I'm happy to respond when I have time. It is not a plot to ignore the good posts. I can't answer to all right away and then several pages go by. If they are better quality posts, they may require more thought to respond.

 

[NashuaPats]

My points are these. They are very simple. Please just refer me to the responsive post number and I will read it and respond.

1. The "science" cannot determine whether or not there was human tampering with the balls. The hand-picked expert that Kessler brought with him to the Appeal hearing says as much below.

Reisner: Exactly, which is why the Ideal Gas Law itself only has theoretical applicability to this problem and not practical applicability, because the balls were not measured at some frozen temperature at the end of halftime outside, but had an opportunity to warm to some degree, fair?

Snyder: I think that's a fair point.

Reisner: In any event, you concede that if the non-logo gauge was used pre-game, application of the Ideal Gas Law cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements, correct?

Snyder: You are talking about the analog to -- I just want to be clear -- the analog to --

Reisner: Your criticism doesn't apply to the use of the non-logo gauges used pre-game, correct?

Snyder: That's correct. This is their structure. The mistake on the inconsistent master gauge conversion is only substantively important under the assumption that the logo gauge was used, not under the assumption that the non-logo gauge was used.

In other words, whether the logo gauge or non-logo gauge was used makes a critical difference to the ultimate conclusion. Ditto the wetness of the balls, when each ball was measured, temperatures in the room, temperatures outside, on and on. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE KNOWN, THEREFORE THE IDEAL GAS LAW IS OF LIMITED UTILITY--IT GETS US SOME OF THE WAY TO THE ANSWER, BUT NOT ALL THE WAY.

2. Since the science is inconclusive, the only evidence is the text messages, testimony, and video of McNally going into the bathroom.

3. Because of 1 and 2, you have the Commissioner making a judgment call on some vaguely nefarious-sounding texts and badly timed bathroom breaks. To a judge on the Second Circuit that is not able to go through the facts to the level we are, he may not feel there is some grand injustice against Brady going on, which may color his view of the legal issues. On the other hand, if the science really did PROVE nothing happened--that foul play was a statistical impossibility--I think that would change everything. But that's not what we have here.

I'm not going to discuss any of these points. I already have discussed some of them with you, but you ignored me. I discussed the effects of the unknown temperature readings with you a couple of months ago and you ignored me. I discussed other points with you last week in another thread and you ignored me and then raised them again. I discussed points with you earlier in this thread, some you responded to, others you ignored only to raise again stating no one had an explaination. You have done this to many other posters as well. I won't keep doing it. Danger Zone just pointed this out as have others.

 

[letekro]

I'm not going to discuss any of these points. I already have discussed some of them with you, but you ignored me. I discussed the effects of the unknown temperature readings with you a couple of months ago and you ignored me. I discussed other points with you last week in another thread and you ignored me and then raised them again. I discussed points with you earlier in this thread, some you responded to, others you ignored only to raise again stating no one had an explaination. You have done this to many other posters as well. I won't keep doing it. Danger Zone just pointed this out as have others.

Just checked your history and can't find the posts you speak of. There is one post that is just a picture of a giant troll. Is that one of your insightful posts?

You just posted that Ted Snyder was making good points at the Appeal hearing. Well his overarching point, repeated again and again was that the "science" is meaningless if you don't know the wetness of the balls, the timing, the temperatures, the gauge used, etc. In other words, the point I have been making here repeatedly.

 

[Tony2046]

If that football was measured outside, that is indeed great evidence that that ball was not deflated. Is that the case? Or was it measured inside at halftime?

Stop saying that Exponent predicted the balls to be between 11.52 and 11.32, you are confusing everyone here.

It was measured inside at halftime presumably before the other footballs arrived from the field. So could have been after two or three minutes. But no time is specified in the Wells report. IIRC