RJMAC

January 20th, 2015 at 11:49 PM ^

One team has a better grip on the football. They can pass, catch, and hold onto the ball better. If you can do that,then an offense will be able to move the ball AND SUSTAIN DRIVES. If one team can sustain drives, it eventually will wear down a defense. The game was close until the second half. Indy also was unable to move the ball do to the bad weather. Luck looked like he never threw a football before. It was mainly due to the slippery ball that WASN'T doctored. New England poured it on in the second half due to a tired Defense playing against a team that WAS CHEATING.

HANCOCK

January 21st, 2015 at 12:09 AM ^

I dont see how its cheating. They submit the balls to the refs for inspection. If the refs said they were ok, then they were ok.

 

And I find it funny that the refs havent come under fire here. They are holding, setting, throwing, and catching the ball all game long. Wouldnt they have noticed if the ball wasnt inflated properly? If they didnt, then Im sorry, but I have to conclude that it was a very minor deflation of the ball. If they did notice and didnt say anything, then the problem we have isnt with the Pats, but with the refs.

ak47

January 21st, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^

That's not how fucking rules work.  Just because the refs were too incompetent to catch the Pats cheating doesn't mean they still didn't cheat.  If a cop watches you break the law and doesn't do anything about it that doesn't mean you didn't still break the law.

This is pretty much like speeding actually.  Is it drastically going to change anything one way or the other? Not really.  Do cops let people speed by all the time with no penalty. Yes.  But when you do get pulled over speeding you shut up and pay the ticket because you know that you were breaking the rules.  Same thing for the Pats, deflating the balls was not the difference in this game but they got caught so shut up and pay the fine.  I just think its hilarious how everyone on this board thought there was no way the patriots would ever have done something to break the rules for an advantage.

HANCOCK

January 21st, 2015 at 2:11 AM ^

ok, so then if they deflated them to the point that there was a noticable impact it made on the ball, how did they get it past the refs all game long? the refs put the ball in play every patriots offensive down, tossed it back and forth as they got it to the line of scrimmage, etc. they wouldve known instantly if the balls were tampered with to the point that it had a significant impact on the way they are thrown.

 

bottomline, the refs would have noticed if the balls were deflated. they were throwing the balls more than brady was. if it had a significant impact on how the balls felt in your hand, the refs wouldve noticed. if the refs noticed and didnt say anything, then that is on the refs and they should be the ones held responsible. if they didnt notice that the balls were deflated as they were throwing them, then i seriously doubt that the impact of the deflation couldve led to any change in the game....either way, i see nothing wrong with anything the patriots did. they won fair and square. i dont know why people always look for a way to find them cheating. the whole "spygate" thing was so stupid too. 

 

 

kalamazoo

January 21st, 2015 at 3:58 AM ^

Hey just because somebody writes off illegal expenses on their business taxes doesn't make it more legal if the IRS doesn't catch them. It just means the IRS has bad protocols to catch it.

In the same way, the NFL can govern however they want as the authority. This doesn't happen every day and the refs probably have bad processes in place. In the interest in keeping the game going and the respect for Brady as QB and a myriad of other things going on, even if one did suspect deflation, they may be too distracted by the game and their own thoughts of causing a commotion that they did nothing.

It's not like they get an extra commission for finding deflated balls like bouncers sometimes get for finding fake IDs.

I get it though, sounds like we are both in favor of better ref protocols to catch this in the future and, for the integrity of the game, I'm happy it was found.

I graduated with Brady, same age, saw live his first collegiate throw...an interception for a TD versus UCLA. Then saw his comebacks live at penn state and in Miami in the Orange bowl. I held a sign that said "another Brady comeback" on ABC at the Orange bowl. He has come a long way, so persistent, worked harder than I ever have and I'm an engineer/MBA/CPA. He seems like a great guy and I'm super inspired by him.

But it's important to separate the rule from the bias for the player. Possible Brady has nothing to do with it anyway. And if the rule is bad, then hopefully this is the catalyst to change the rule.

HANCOCK

January 21st, 2015 at 4:54 AM ^

yeah, i mean personally, i never even saw brady while he was at michigan. i wasnt tryng to defend the pats because of him. i was just speaking from experience ive had as a ref. if i had a ball that was noticably deflated, i would throw it back to the sideline and get a good ball. im not saying that makes the pats right, but the refs needed to be better (which you seem to agree with too). i really think this has been made into a much bigger deal than it needed to be. the pats didnt even throw the ball all over the colts as much as they ran all over them...and deflation of the ball had nothing to do with that.

 

i think there needs to be a standard ball supplied by game officals. NFL QBs shouldnt need their own ball. passing records are already dropping at insane rates. i dont think any harm will be done if the ball is standardized and managed by the NFL/game officials. ive always thought it was weird that teams got to handle their own ball before the game. imagine if an MLB pitcher got to scuff-up game balls and make them fit their own preferences. I dont think NFL QBs need any help either. 

sLideshowBob

January 21st, 2015 at 7:32 AM ^

I think Hancock means the refs are touching the ball every single play and didn't notice. As in right before they place the ball and the center snaps it and after every play when the players flip them the ball. So how much difference are we talking about if the zebras don't notice?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

oriental andrew

January 21st, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^

How much of a difference is 2psi (per the article)? Anyone have a couple footballs properly inflated and underinflated to compare the difference? Is it noticeable/significant? What if it's raining, cold hands, gloves, etc.? Still noticeable?

Also, someone go outside and throw/catch those same balls. Any difference? 

GoBLUinTX

January 21st, 2015 at 7:46 AM ^

The game balls were found to be underinflated by almost 20%, you don't think the officials should be able to notice that during the game?

Here's an interesting take from Aaron Rogers.  He stated he likes the balls over inflated, even beyond the NFL specifications, because he says he gets a better grip.  He then goes on to say that he wasn't benefiting, but NE was because they could grip the ball better?  Hypocrite?

LesMilesismyhero

January 21st, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^

Are terrible at determining if a football is within specifications when they simply handle the ball.  The only sensible solution to this is to take this out of the control of the teams (and team personnel) and put the footballs under league control at all times when not in play.  The patriots coaching staff has proven again they will break any rule for an advantage no matter how small the advantage gained.

ghost

January 21st, 2015 at 4:00 AM ^

You actually think 11 of 12 is a coincidence?? Well the NFL by the sound it does not and neither does anybody except for some NE fans.  

Also blaming the refs for not noticing is like blaming a cop for not stopping someone from stealing a car.  Its not rational.

HANCOCK

January 21st, 2015 at 4:59 AM ^

im not suggesting that it was a coincidence. im saying that the refs need to notice it if the balls are illegal. maybe it wasnt very noticable (which would make me wonder where the large advantage came from...but whateves), but the refs need to notice. maybe they should spend some time training to notice these things in the future, i dont really know the solution. all i know is that i find it hard to discredit the pats when nothing was done about the issue during the entire game, but then suddenly it is a big issue after the game

74polSKA

January 21st, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

Or the Colts planned on filing the complaint ahead of time and the interception gave them the opportunity. If you know this is common practice in the league, then catching the Patriots "cheating" would take the focus off the fact that your team is probably going to get housed. If the NFL is pissed at the Patriots, I bet they are even more pissed at the Colts for bringing it up.

74polSKA

January 21st, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^

I haven't said the Patriots didn't break the rules. I'm sure they did and that a lot of other teams do too. And you can't tell me that the Colts' front office had much confidence going into that game after getting their asses handed to them the last what, 4 times they've played? This is Jim Irsay we're talking about. According to Indy fans, he's good friends with the Bob Kravitz, the Indianapolis reporter that broke the "story", so I don't think it's that much of a reach.

Smoothitron

January 21st, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

I imagine the Colts had about as much confidence going into NE as they did going to Denver, another team who was supposed to blow them out.  It's not as if the inferior team never wins these games on the road.  Acting like the Pats had a >99% chance of winning this game is absurd, no matter the outcome.



I don't quite understand how the Colts owner being friends with a Colts reporter has much to do with your assertion.  It makes sense to me that a reporter close to a team would break a story related to that team e.g. Harbaugh.

74polSKA

January 21st, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^

There's a big difference betweeen supposed to get blown out and actually got blown out however many times running. I'm sure the players were confident but I'm talking about ownership not being so much. And the point about the owner and reporter being friends was just in reference to the idea that the Colts may have had this planned ahead of time, not that a local reporter broke the story. Like maybe Irsay gave his friend a heads up to have a story ready to roll. He did release the story at 1:15 am. What's that, 2 hours after the game ended? Maybe that's normal but it doesn't seem so.

Smoothitron

January 21st, 2015 at 1:01 PM ^

If this were a situation where coaches and players were complaining during postgame interviews or on twitter, yeah, sure, it's probably just excuses.  However, in this case we have a in-game complaint that was addressed and corrected by the refs during the game.  I don't know how much more legitimate a complaint can be than that.



It's worth mentioning that no one but the most insane Colts homers are asserting that this had an effect on the game one way or the other, but the defenders of the Pats keep reminding everyone that the games outcome wouldn't have been any different, as if that is relevent.

I presume the outcome could have been different if the rules had been adhered to, but only in the butterfly-effect, RNG kind of way.  Not anything meaningful:  Maybe Cribbs handles that punt and the Colts tie the game, maybe Jackson drops the INT and the game is over before halftime.

Finally, and most importantly, Jim Irsay is a moron. He isn't cunning enough to mastermind a scheme in any respect. This is the guy that forced the T-Rich trade.

HANCOCK

January 21st, 2015 at 4:59 AM ^

im not suggesting that it was a coincidence. im saying that the refs need to notice it if the balls are illegal. maybe it wasnt very noticable (which would make me wonder where the large advantage came from...but whateves), but the refs need to notice. maybe they should spend some time training to notice these things in the future, i dont really know the solution. all i know is that i find it hard to discredit the pats when nothing was done about the issue during the entire game, but then suddenly it is a big issue after the game

bluebyyou

January 21st, 2015 at 6:18 AM ^

The refs inspect the balls, approve them for use and mark them accordingly. It starts and ends with them.  

One item that i haven't seen mentioned is where are the balls inspected by the refs?

If the inspection takes place in a 75 degree locker room, and the game is played on a 40 degree field, there are certain laws pertaining to gases, Charles Law, Boyles Law and the well known ideal gas law, PV=nRT, that tells you that pressure and temperature are related. The higher the temperature, the greater the pressure. It would seem to be no different than an automobile tire.  

The rule of thumb I learned is that for each 10 degree change in temperature, up or down, you lose (or gain) 1 PSI in your tires, which is why you have to inflate or deflate tire pressure seasonally.

Then, there might also be some amount of evaporative cooling occurring from playing in the rain.

Am I missing something? 

go16blue

January 20th, 2015 at 11:31 PM ^

Indy was thoroughly demolished regardless of the inflation of the balls, but that's beside the point. Cheating is cheating, and should be punished. Especially for repeat offenders. 

Tater

January 20th, 2015 at 11:36 PM ^

I'm all for "fairness."  They can start by calling the Seahawks for every single PI they commit.  Currently, they commit PI on every play and dare all crews to be "that crew" that calls PI on every play.  Sparty did the same thing under Narducci; it will be interesting to see if they do it under the new guy.  

maizenbluenc

January 21st, 2015 at 8:11 AM ^

Just before the half, the refs didn't call three pass interferences, defensive holds, etc, resulting in the Pats having to kick a field goal. The refs set, threw, exchanged, ect. the Pats footballs all day. They didn't question the inflation without prompting from the Colts, and apparently even then didn't intervene during the game.

What is so different between not calling an interference call that impacts the score of a game, and not calling illegal ball inflation during the progress of a game? Why would one be acceptable to question and fine afterward, and the other not? Both were non-calls by referees during the game for intentional acts that were outside the rules.