Talk with Judge - Labor lawyer who deals with Unions every day

[upstater1]

No. Science is the core issue. This whole hullabaloo is about air pressure in footballs. If science says that the air in those footballs is about what you'd expect from natural temperature change, then there is no problem. It doesn't matter what those two jackasses texted to each other.

You don't have a murder if no one dies.

Exactly. We can even say. Brady had those two jackasses alter the balls in every game for 15 years EXCEPT the Jets game when they forgot to do it (and the refs put the balls at 16) and the AFCCG.

And if we copped to that, it still doesn't make a difference.

It's as relevant as Aaron Rodgers saying he did it for at least one game.

 

[upstater1]

Balls averaged 1.2 below.

For several reasons, Palm Beach took the average. I think he was right for doing so.

Here are the reasons.

1. The Wells report could not tell us who measured the balls first.
2. if Prioleau measured them first, and by doing so let a bit of air out, it stands to reason that the second measure would have lower readings. This is why the average might be taken.
3. if air doesn't come out with measuring, then the two different gauges used might account for the variance. But there too we don't know who used which gauge.
4. The intercepted ball from the field was not tested, probably because it had been tested on the field 3 times, with each different number taped to the ball. This presumes that they got 3 different readings each time they tested it. I can think of no other reason for this to happen than air escaping with each test.

In other words, given the extremely shoddy way the refs went about doing this, it makes sense for someone like Palm Beach to take the average of the readings. 1.2 when the predicted PSI is 1.22

That being said, things become extremely funky if #3 is true and the gauges were different, because Ref. Anderson couldn't remember which gauge he used before the game. And if that's true, we don't even know that his claim of 12.5 PSI is correct. The balls could have started out at 12 PSI if he was using the same gauge as the ref with readings higher than 1.3 drop.

NOTE: I am not talking about the average of all the balls.

I am talking about the average between the two different readings of each individual ball.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And in that case, in the United States you are innocent until proven guilty.

Only in a criminal court and only the factfinder (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) is required to make that assumption.

 

[Froob]

Only in a criminal court and only the factfinder (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) is required to make that assumption.

Most reasonable people anyways....guilty until proven innocent is apparently how the NFL does it and it isn't right.

 

[FrodoBagginz]

Our whole nation is run on Guilty Until Proven Innocent nowadays so I really can't be surprised the NFL is run the same way.

 

[Fencer]

I think we can simplify or at least abbreviate the scientific argument:

• Based on the best available numbers, the Patriots' balls behaved in line with the predictions of science.
• Based on the best available numbers, the Colts' balls did not behave in line with the predictions of science.
• The best available numbers on the Patriots' balls aren't very good.
• The best available numbers on the Colts' balls are even worse. (Smaller sample size if nothing else.)
• The Patriots' and Colts' balls weren't handled the same way. (If nothing else, the Colts' balls were measured later. Also, the balls may have been taken indoors at half-time at a different time than the Patriots' balls were.)

 

[Fencer]

A lawsuit in the state courts can only go to the state's supreme court and then after the state's supreme court has ruled the only remaining appellate court that can hear the case is the US Supreme Court. Which of course almost definitely won't hear it since it picks the cases it wants to hear and picks very few. So for all intents and purposes the ruling of the state's supreme court will be final.

But just for that state.

A different state's court, while it surely would be influenced by the precedent in Missouri, is not obligated to follow it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

But just for that state.

A different state's court, while it surely would be influenced by the precedent in Missouri, is not obligated to follow it.

Absolutely correct. No state is bound by the courts of another state. Only by its own binding courts and the relevant federal courts.

 

[ChesBay]

Physics Professor: Deflategate Report’s Science Holds Up
By Braden Campbell
Boston.com Staff | 05.06.15 | 7:59 PM
The 243-page Deflategate report released Wednesday, which included independent analysis by two sources, was a big blow to those holding out hope science would exonerate the Patriots.

But could there be any holes to the analysts’ logic? Not likely, says Boston University professor Martin Schmaltz.

While the ideal gas law states air pressure in a given volume will drop along with temperature — and the balls used in the AFC Championship game likely dropped in temperature when moved from inside the stadium to the 51-degree field — the discrepancies between drops in pressure between the Colts balls and the Patriots balls was likely too much to be chance, according to Schmaltz.

“I see that the Colts’ balls pressure dropped about half a PSI and the Patriots balls seem to be more like 1.5, or maybe between one and 1.5,” says Schmaltz. “So it’s a little mysterious why the Patriots’ balls dropped more.”

According to the report, the Patriots’ balls began the game inflated to at least 12.5 PSI, while the Colts’ balls were around 13 PSI, give or take a tenth of a PSI. But it’s not the drop in PSI from that reference point that Schmaltz says looks bad for the Patriots, but the drops relative to each other.

According to Schmaltz, the ideal gas law equation suggests a drop in temperature from 68 or 70 would produce a drop of less than 1 PSI in a ball inflated to 12.5 or 13 PSI. While the report found the Colts’ balls measured at or around the league-minimum 12.5 PSI at halftime, many of the Patriots balls were a PSI or more below that threshold, a drop so large its unlikely to have been caused by atmospheric conditions.

While a 12.5 PSI ball could drop to 11.6 PSI, by his calculations, with a temperature drop from 68 or 70 degrees to 51, given both sets being subject to the same conditions, it’s suspicious the Patriots’ balls would drop so much further.

“The Patriots’ balls are around there, some are a little bit low, so the Patriots’ balls are not inconsistent with having been deflated by going down in temperature,” he says. “But it is very mysterious just based on why the Colts balls didn’t drop as much and the Patriots’ balls did.”

Given the exactness with which the analysts approached their study and the other evidence found by investigators, Schmaltz said the conclusion two equipment managers likely tampered with the footballs is an apt one.

“A lot of the text message stuff, that looks pretty damning to me,” Schmaltz says. ‘The science I don’t think is a slam dunk in terms of convicting them, but it also looks much more likely (than not) this was done just based on the science.”

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/physics-professor-deflategate-report-science-holds/T2HqI3vFVivr9grXOD2VEI/story.html

Sorry to do this again to you Tom, but you have made yet another mistake. Pls note that Professor Smaltz made one little caveat (about initial conditions) that you may have missed, namely: "given both sets [of footballs] being subject to the same conditions." They weren't subject to the same conditions. Let me explain further: 1) Patriot balls were kept inside (75 degrees) all day, up to and including when they were inspected by the umpire, and then they were sent to the game field where they were subjected to temperature drop down to 48 degrees; 2) Colts balls arrived by Team bus, where they were stored in baggage compartment for quite some time (ambient temperature), then inspected by umpire when they arrived at stadium, and then sent to game field where they were again subjected to the same ambient (48 degree) conditions; 3) In addition, Patriot games balls were subjected to more rain (evaporative cooling) than Colts balls because the Patriots simply had possession of the ball longer in the first half.

Plenty of other technical holes in the Professor's arguments...indicating he may not have the full story. Also very suspicious that a man of science would resort to adding that last comment about the damning text messages. Wouldn't his analysis be able to stand on its own two feet without such a comment??

At any rate, even the Wells Report acknowledges that the pressure drop was close to what could have occurred on such a day. Yet their scientific folks didn't even address evaporative cooling aspect, nor the faulty pressure gauges. (Read the report!)

 

[ChesBay]

"but it also looks much more likely (than not) this was done just based on the science.”

Again, there is NO scientific evidence that proves unequivocally that Brady is innocent, or guilty.

And your many arguments have been: "therefore he's guilty!!"

 

[tom444]

I think we can simplify or at least abbreviate the scientific argument:

• Based on the best available numbers, the Patriots' balls behaved in line with the predictions of science.
• Based on the best available numbers, the Colts' balls did not behave in line with the predictions of science.
• The best available numbers on the Patriots' balls aren't very good.
• The best available numbers on the Colts' balls are even worse. (Smaller sample size if nothing else.)
• The Patriots' and Colts' balls weren't handled the same way. (If nothing else, the Colts' balls were measured later. Also, the balls may have been taken indoors at half-time at a different time than the Patriots' balls were.)

So: "Based on the best available numbers, the Patriots' balls behaved in line with the predictions of science."

But: "The best available numbers on the Patriots' balls aren't very good."

 

[BTTA]

One thing that is remarkable is the frequency with which conversation on this topic assumes that there are measurements of the footballs from the Colts game that are valid. There's aren't any such measurements. The way it was done would be thrown out of a 5th grade science class. It is as if Brady was Driving while Black and was pulled over for speeding by a cop using a set of binoculars to estimate his speed. Everyone is talking about whether his being black is the issue, when in fact there is no evidence that he was speeding.

Furthermore, once again we have a practice that was started at a Jets game, under their supervision, that the Patriots balked at and tried to correct, and are now being accused of doing. Yes, there is a pattern here.

 

[Fencer]

So: "Based on the best available numbers, the Patriots' balls behaved in line with the predictions of science."

But: "The best available numbers on the Patriots' balls aren't very good."

Right. According to the police's radar detector, you didn't speed. However, radar detectors aren't that accurate, and somebody who works for somebody who works for you joked a few times about you speeding. So apparently you're guilty of reckless driving.

 

[RobertWeathers]

One thing that is remarkable is the frequency with which conversation on this topic assumes that there are measurements of the footballs from the Colts game that are valid. There's aren't any such measurements. The way it was done would be thrown out of a 5th grade science class. It is as if Brady was Driving while Black and was pulled over for speeding by a cop using a set of binoculars to estimate his speed. Everyone is talking about whether his being black is the issue, when in fact there is no evidence that he was speeding.

Furthermore, once again we have a practice that was started at a Jets game, under their supervision, that the Patriots balked at and tried to correct, and are now being accused of doing. Yes, there is a pattern here.

Good post.

The pattern is that the NFL doesn't give a sh_t about the Pats. I swear they'd make them play games in Reefs if they could.

 

[tom444]

Still nothing there. IF anything can have just as easy counter explanation (ie the texts, calls etc), then that is not proof either. Point is, some things may lean further one way, others the other. It's up to perception. What isn't though is stating complete guilt. That based on the report, cannot be. To get a massive suspension or suspended at all require this. This wishy washy generally aware BS may work for the league (for now), but how it works in the minds of what I hoped were otherwise intelligent people is shocking to me.

Obviously I've never said I can prove "complete guilt", nor can you prove complete innocence. So your wishy washy BS may work for you but not for me. Brady hasn't passed the smell test. He had one press conference denying culpability, not very convincingly, nothing meaningfull since. Add the texts, calls, his body langue, I get if it walks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[SuperStang83]

Another thing that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is the fact that "Exponent determined that the air pressure in thirteen footballs could be readily released using a needle in well under one minute and forty seconds." This was on page 12 of The Wells Report and on page 7 the report states, "Only four Colts balls were tested because the officials were running out of time before the start of the second half." Checking the pressure and letting the air out are extremely similar processes so why weren't two officials able to check the pressure of 23 balls in 15 minutes, but McNally was able to deflate 13 balls in under 2 minutes?

Another thing that is baffling to me is the report says on page 7 the report states "After being informed during the second quarter of the AFC Championship Game that the Colts had measured a Patriots game ball and found it to be under-inflated" and then on page 35 the report says "Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way." How is the NFL cool with the Colts tampering with a ball???

I haven't read the entire report yet, but another thing that has stuck out to me so far is that these refs are just bringing their own gauges and pumps to games!! Shouldn't the gauges they use have to go through a validation process every month or so sort of like you would for a torque wrench?

One more thing that I have picked up on is on page 6 of the report Jastremski says, "Nah. Hasn?t even mentioned it, figured u should get something since he gives u nothing." To me this line sounds like Tom doesn't hook McNally up at all and that Jastremski is because Tom doesn't. Does anyone else read this the same way?

 

[patsfan13]

Obviously I've never said I can prove "complete guilt", nor can you prove complete innocence. So your wishy washy BS may work for you but not for me. Brady hasn't passed the smell test. He had one press conference denying culpability, not very convincingly, nothing meaningfull since. Add the texts, calls, his body langue, I get if it walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Just curious if you a Pats fan why are seeking to 'prove' Brady's guilt at all?

 

[tom444]

Just curious if you a Pats fan why are seeking to 'prove' Brady's guilt at all?

There in lies the biggest BS of all. Because I'm a Patriot fan I'm not supposed to think for myself and just shut up and go along.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Sorry to do this again to you Tom, but you have made yet another mistake. Pls note that Professor Smaltz made one little caveat (about initial conditions) that you may have missed, namely: "given both sets [of footballs] being subject to the same conditions." They weren't subject to the same conditions. Let me explain further: 1) Patriot balls were kept inside (75 degrees) all day, up to and including when they were inspected by the umpire, and then they were sent to the game field where they were subjected to temperature drop down to 48 degrees; 2) Colts balls arrived by Team bus, where they were stored in baggage compartment for quite some time (ambient temperature), then inspected by umpire when they arrived at stadium, and then sent to game field where they were again subjected to the same ambient (48 degree) conditions; 3) In addition, Patriot games balls were subjected to more rain (evaporative cooling) than Colts balls because the Patriots simply had possession of the ball longer in the first half.

Plenty of other technical holes in the Professor's arguments...indicating he may not have the full story. Also very suspicious that a man of science would resort to adding that last comment about the damning text messages. Wouldn't his analysis be able to stand on its own two feet without such a comment??

At any rate, even the Wells Report acknowledges that the pressure drop was close to what could have occurred on such a day. Yet their scientific folks didn't even address evaporative cooling aspect, nor the faulty pressure gauges. (Read the report!)

This sort of thing kind of pisses me off. The professor is using the Colts balls as a control with no justification. He's ignoring the gauge switch that leads to the difference as well but put that aside for now.

Given a discrepancy between two sets of data it cannot just be assumed one is right. He's started with an assumption, from there it doesn't matter what his calculations say. It actually makes the Colts balls more suspicious for not lining up with the calculations but given that the balls were in changing conditions and the measurement is based off memory that's not even worthy of much consideration.

Feynman talked about this. You can memorize scientific formulas and theories and get a degree, but to actually do science you must start with integrity and have humility. Once he made the assumption Colts balls were a control he stopped doing the scientific method. Everything after that is just GIGO.

 

[upstater1]

This sort of thing kind of pisses me off. The professor is using the Colts balls as a control with no justification. He's ignoring the gauge switch that leads to the difference as well but put that aside for now.

Given a discrepancy between two sets of data it cannot just be assumed one is right. He's started with an assumption, from there it doesn't matter what his calculations say. It actually makes the Colts balls more suspicious for not lining up with the calculations but given that the balls were in changing conditions and the measurement is based off memory that's not even worthy of much consideration.

Feynman talked about this. You can memorize scientific formulas and theories and get a degree, but to actually do science you must start with integrity and have humility. Once he made the assumption Colts balls were a control he stopped doing the scientific method. Everything after that is just GIGO.

A little birdie told me that the professor is actually NOT using the Colts balls as control. A little birdie told me that the professor may believe that even in the belly of the engineering firm's analysis we might see that they agree with you, bobsyouruncle, and that therefore they dismissed the colts balls as not very relevant.


A little birdie also might have said to me that the issue is that the balls were remeasured in the locker room at halftime. thus the balls were warming back up and the pressure in them started rising again. patriots balls were measured first, so colts balls had more time to regain their pressure. since the exact timing of all this remained unknown and a couple of minutes really make a difference you don't know how much of the difference is due to this effect. Regardless, the birdie also stated that it seemed a little large to him (the difference between sets) but it really depends on whether they took a break between measuring the two sets of balls and for how long.


the engineering firm put more weight on the fact that there was a large variance in the patriots balls pressures and that the pressure drop for the patriots balls was a little larger than what they were able to obtain by trying to recreate game day conditions in their lab with original wilson balls and the same gauges that the refs used. A little birdie then might imagine that still the scientific evidence points towards something unusual having happened to the patriots balls but it's certainly no slam dunk.


but, at the end of the day, the little birdie also said that the sum of all the texts adds up to pretty strong evidence.

And I said to the bird, "Thanks, but we'll disagree about the conclusions then. I'm convinced they based their rejection of natural causes because of the extreme unlikely variance between Patriots balls and Colts balls. This was repeated multiple times in the report. A likelihood of .4%.

As for the texts, they become irrelevant in the sense that you need to be caught for past patterns to matter. After all, Aaron Rodgers and others have admitted to taking balls out of spec. There are many examples of people saying they flouted the rules.

I am pretty convinced that people are reading the texts first and then reading things in reverse to conclude the variance between the two sets of balls shows tampering."

This whole so-called "imagined" exchange between the bird and myself has enabled me to realize that once you include the texts into your mental framework, then the laxity of the refs, and the extreme unscientific testing, actually enables the scientific firm Exponent--and the Wells people--to say that the science CAN'T count because the initial measurements were not conducted under proper conditions.

In other words, the lack of scientific analysis is a FEATURE of the report, not a BUG.