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

[PatsFanSince74]

Actually, Olson is not repping a party to the case. Looks like he's been signed up by the HRC and a business consortium to write an amicus opposing the NC law.

And yeah, the NFLPA side is going to be cutting some seriously big checks over this. According to the Above the Law blog, Gibson Dunn bills out partners at $1,800/hr.

thanks for the clarification

 

[Jackson 2]

This isn't her first time sticking her nose in this case. Who is this wack-job?

I just googled her, read 3 linked items and still can't figure out who TF she is and what her gig is.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

This isn't her first time sticking her nose in this case. Who is this wack-job?

Just that -- some whack job.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'm on page 1 of 35, but guys, I've heard of an en banc hearing, but not an en blanc.
En banc means before a whole body, like a panel of judges or whatever. En blanc means "in white." I am not sure what kind of gathering would be En blanc except a wedding or maybe a klan rally. Or a psi video.

 

[Clonamery]

Just that -- some whack job.

A legal-obsessed Gladys Kravitz.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Crazy lady Michell McGuirk is not giving up her craziness:

She is not an attorney but a CFA. One of her filings.... Wow... Some stream of consciousness there.... http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Michelle-McGuirk-Petition-For-Rehearing.pdf

 

[VectorPrime]

If only the PA went all out like this for the March hearing.

 

[Tony2046]

@letekro , @QuantumMechanic , @PatsFanSince74 or anyone else.

Need some help. I'm a little stumped with these charts.

I understand that they used both the Logo and Non Logo gauge to inflate the football for each chart respectively to test or replicate game day results. I also understand they used a "master gauge" to measure the re-pressurizing readings. They performed 3 separate tests for 3 various start times for each gauge.

Question 1: Even IF they used both the logo and the non logo gauge for all six tests (3 logo + 3 non logo) shouldn't the re-pressurizing rate be similar for each respective team?

To calculate the re-pressurizing rates I used the average start time and the average pressure reading. I find that there is a anywhere from a 81% to 109% difference of re-pressurizing in the colt's balls between the logo and non logo gauges and a 29% to 67% difference of re-pressurizing in the Patriots footballs. This is comparing similar average start times for each team.

So for example (see Excel image below): Using the Non logo gauge the Colt's footballs that were measured at an average start time of 8:15 (8 minutes and 15 seconds) had an 81% decrease in inflation rate than those that were set using the Logo Gauge with an average start time of 8:12. I thought we would have seen the same or at least similar rates regardless of which gauge was used to inflate.

Secondly, I had to assume at least a 1.18 pressure drop (71 deg F to 48 deg) because if I did not the Patriots footballs would have incurred a negative pressure drop using the Logo gauge which of course is not possible. I attribute this partially to the difference between the actual Logo gauge reading and the "master" gauge setting. I did assume, however, and this may be my error, that if the beginning and ending temperatures stayed constant for both groups the results would be fairly accurate. Hence the assumed pressure drop of 1.18. If I used the pressure drop of 0.98 (67 degrees F to 48 deg) I would have started with a higher pressure reading than the Patriots footballs measured during their first measurements at 2:21 seconds.

Beyond all that I find it odd that they used the Colt's footballs as the control although they admittedly do not know the initial parameters that Colt's footballs were exposed to and just willingly assume they were good. That of course is based off of Walt Anderson's non recollection and, of course, Paul Weiss's keen recollection of the events that transpired that day.

One thing to note and I find this critical because it bypasses all this timeline BS:

"The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively—were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification."

"these equations predict that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half"











Second Chart Data: Logo Gauge "Master gauge readings"

 

[PatsFanSince74]

@letekro , @QuantumMechanic , @PatsFanSince74 or anyone else.

Need some help. I'm a little stumped with these charts.

I understand that they used both the Logo and Non Logo gauge to inflate the football for each chart respectively to test or replicate game day results. I also understand they used a "master gauge" to measure the re-pressurizing readings. They performed 3 separate tests for 3 various start times for each gauge.

Question 1: Even IF they used both the logo and the non logo gauge for all six tests (3 logo + 3 non logo) shouldn't the re-pressurizing rate be similar for each respective team?

To calculate the re-pressurizing rates I used the average start time and the average pressure reading. I find that there is a anywhere from a 81% to 109% difference of re-pressurizing in the colt's balls between the logo and non logo gauges and a 29% to 67% difference of re-pressurizing in the Patriots footballs. This is comparing similar average start times for each team.

So for example (see Excel image below): Using the Non logo gauge the Colt's footballs that were measured at an average start time of 8:15 (8 minutes and 15 seconds) had an 81% decrease in inflation rate than those that were set using the Logo Gauge with an average start time of 8:12. I thought we would have seen the same or at least similar rates regardless of which gauge was used to inflate.

Secondly, I had to assume at least a 1.18 pressure drop (71 deg F to 48 deg) because if I did not the Patriots footballs would have incurred a negative pressure drop using the Logo gauge which of course is not possible. I attribute this partially to the difference between the actual Logo gauge reading and the "master" gauge setting. I did assume, however, and this may be my error, that if the beginning and ending temperatures stayed constant for both groups the results would be fairly accurate. Hence the assumed pressure drop of 1.18. If I used the pressure drop of 0.98 (67 degrees F to 48 deg) I would have started with a higher pressure reading than the Patriots footballs measured during their first measurements at 2:21 seconds.

Beyond all that I find it odd that they used the Colt's footballs as the control although they admittedly do not know the initial parameters that Colt's footballs were exposed to and just willingly assume they were good. That of course is based off of Walt Anderson's non recollection and, of course, Paul Weiss's keen recollection of the events that transpired that day.

One thing to note and I find this critical because it bypasses all this timeline BS:

"The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively—were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification."

"these equations predict that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half"











Second Chart Data: Logo Gauge "Master gauge readings"

thanks for the shout out, but, while I do think I have some useful understanding of the legal process issues here, I make no claims to any useful understanding of physics or measurements like these.

It's my layman's understanding that the entire process is flawed because there was no ball-by-ball record of the measurements before the game and because there is a standard error of as much as 0.5 psi in each gauge for each reading, among other things. Even with all that, the Pats balls on average were within 0.23 psi of where they were expected to be (or the weight of a toothpick).

Beyond that, I'm relying on the analysis by the many real physicists who've passed judgment on the flaws of this ("Bill Nye The Science Guy" is not a physicist, but just plays one on TV).

 

[letekro]

thanks for the shout out, but, while I do think I have some useful understanding of the legal process issues here, I make no claims to any useful understanding of physics or measurements like these.

It's my layman's understanding that the entire process is flawed because there was no ball-by-ball record of the measurements before the game and because there is a standard error of as much as 0.5 psi in each gauge for each reading, among other things. Even with all that, the Pats balls on average were within 0.23 psi of where they were expected to be (or the weight of a toothpick).

Beyond that, I'm relying on the analysis by the many real physicists who've passed judgment on the flaws of this ("Bill Nye The Science Guy" is not a physicist, but just plays one on TV).

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.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Actually, Olson is not repping a party to the case. Looks like he's been signed up by the HRC and a business consortium to write an amicus opposing the NC law.

And yeah, the NFLPA side is going to be cutting some seriously big checks over this. According to the Above the Law blog, Gibson Dunn bills out partners at $1,800/hr.

I can think of much better things to spend $1,800/hr on...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

As I said, I leave this topic to those who know more than do I about these things.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

She is not an attorney but a CFA. One of her filings.... Wow... Some stream of consciousness there.... http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Michelle-McGuirk-Petition-For-Rehearing.pdf

Here is an extract that gives a good flavor:

Per Fed.R.App.Pr.35(b)(l)(B) exceptional circumstances exist as my surviving many diagnosis of disease and qualifying to the 1984 U.S. National Gymnastics Team and Olympic Trials is likely highly statistically remote over Mr. Brady's record yet not without due respect.
​

Maybe she and Rusty could get together to discuss this case further.

 

[Clonamery]

Here is an extract that gives a good flavor:

Per Fed.R.App.Pr.35(b)(l)(B) exceptional circumstances exist as my surviving many diagnosis of disease and qualifying to the 1984 U.S. National Gymnastics Team and Olympic Trials is likely highly statistically remote over Mr. Brady's record yet not without due respect.
​

Maybe she and Rusty could get together to discuss this case further.

She should run for politics with that ability to spew adverbial blather. And that is without any respect.

 

[Tony2046]

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.

All good points Letekro. They are interesting charts.

Ran into this interesting link searching for some help.

Video: Why Wells Report is Wrong and Actually Exonerates Patriots (<<<Link)

Your statement "But PSI rises quickly" has been what I have personally focused on within the charts.

Using simple methods I've tried to understand what the average reacclimation rate was. I would have expected that regardless of which gauge was used the rate of psi gain should have remained similar. But when looking at the charts I find a difference. (Again, I'm not a physicist) Not sure if it is significant and means that their game day simulation demonstrates that even in a "controlled" environment results will vary or if the results are not significant and , of course, OR I don't know what the hell I am doing.

Patriots chart: Rate of PSI gain = (2nd Avg psi - First Avg psi)/ (2nd Avg time - 1st Avg time)
Same for rate of Psi gain between 2nd and 3rd Avg start times.

The change in the rate of psi gain for the Patriots footballs between the 2nd and 3rd measurements almost doubled when performing the test with the Non-Logo gauge compared to the similar start times using the Logo Gauge.




The Colts rate change between the 1st and 2nd and the 2nd and 3rd vary by 15 and 22 percent.

 

[Froob]

She is not an attorney but a CFA. One of her filings.... Wow... Some stream of consciousness there.... http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Michelle-McGuirk-Petition-For-Rehearing.pdf

The way this whole mess has gone, fully expecting to see it approved because her petition is "compelling, if not overwhelming."

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Here is an extract that gives a good flavor:

Per Fed.R.App.Pr.35(b)(l)(B) exceptional circumstances exist as my surviving many diagnosis of disease and qualifying to the 1984 U.S. National Gymnastics Team and Olympic Trials is likely highly statistically remote over Mr. Brady's record yet not without due respect.
​

Maybe she and Rusty could get together to discuss this case further.

That was the passage that caught my eye. She is probably close to 50 years old, old enough to know better but still coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.

 

[Tony2046]

@letekro - This is an interesting link. Related to the one in the previous post but here he digs into the tables used to create the two charts in question.

Deflategate: Exponent’s Bias and the Master Error

 

[Huckleberry1]

I thought it was odd that Hurley finished his article, by saying the rank and file will have a right to grumble at the rates the NFLPA are being charged for the appeal. The appeal really isn't about Brady anymore it's about Goodells authority over the players, and the ruling won't just affect discipline but will be used as a bargaining chip by the league to get the players to fold on the 18 game season. If Brady wins the players win and that's well worth the cost.

 

[goheels22002]

@letekro , @QuantumMechanic , @PatsFanSince74 or anyone else.

Need some help. I'm a little stumped with these charts.

I understand that they used both the Logo and Non Logo gauge to inflate the football for each chart respectively to test or replicate game day results. I also understand they used a "master gauge" to measure the re-pressurizing readings. They performed 3 separate tests for 3 various start times for each gauge.

Question 1: Even IF they used both the logo and the non logo gauge for all six tests (3 logo + 3 non logo) shouldn't the re-pressurizing rate be similar for each respective team?

To calculate the re-pressurizing rates I used the average start time and the average pressure reading. I find that there is a anywhere from a 81% to 109% difference of re-pressurizing in the colt's balls between the logo and non logo gauges and a 29% to 67% difference of re-pressurizing in the Patriots footballs. This is comparing similar average start times for each team.

So for example (see Excel image below): Using the Non logo gauge the Colt's footballs that were measured at an average start time of 8:15 (8 minutes and 15 seconds) had an 81% decrease in inflation rate than those that were set using the Logo Gauge with an average start time of 8:12. I thought we would have seen the same or at least similar rates regardless of which gauge was used to inflate.

Secondly, I had to assume at least a 1.18 pressure drop (71 deg F to 48 deg) because if I did not the Patriots footballs would have incurred a negative pressure drop using the Logo gauge which of course is not possible. I attribute this partially to the difference between the actual Logo gauge reading and the "master" gauge setting. I did assume, however, and this may be my error, that if the beginning and ending temperatures stayed constant for both groups the results would be fairly accurate. Hence the assumed pressure drop of 1.18. If I used the pressure drop of 0.98 (67 degrees F to 48 deg) I would have started with a higher pressure reading than the Patriots footballs measured during their first measurements at 2:21 seconds.

Beyond all that I find it odd that they used the Colt's footballs as the control although they admittedly do not know the initial parameters that Colt's footballs were exposed to and just willingly assume they were good. That of course is based off of Walt Anderson's non recollection and, of course, Paul Weiss's keen recollection of the events that transpired that day.

One thing to note and I find this critical because it bypasses all this timeline BS:

"The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively—were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification."

"these equations predict that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half"











Second Chart Data: Logo Gauge "Master gauge readings"