Deflated footballs.......New England has a history of cheating at every turn

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

It really doesn't unless it one QB prefers a deflated ball while the other prefers regulation.  This is probably only making headlines because it involves New England.  Had this been any other team we wouldn't be hearing about it.

It makes a huge difference.  A ball  with two pounds less air makes the ball slightly softer and easier to hold to pass.  A softer ball is also easier to catch.

Easier to grip is a major advantage.  ESPECIALLY when you're talking about professional players.

Both teams are playing with the same balls, so they both benefit from the same inflation. I pointed out that - being that the case - the only advantage there would be if one team preferred to play with an underinflated ball and the other did not. Then there would exist an advantage for the team that prefers the underinflated ball.

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

They're easier to get a grip on when catching.

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

A NASCAR Sprint car can, legally, adjust the pressure in their tires. They can adjust the tire pressure in one tire by 1/4 pound and it changes the handling of the car.

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

A NASCAR Sprint car can, legally, adjust the pressure in their tires.  They can adjust the tire pressure in one tire by 1/4 pound and it changes the handling of the car.

His point is that both teams play with the same ball. Being that the case, where is the advantage?

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:If this story proves to be accurate, and if New England did deflate the balls after they were subjected to pre-game testing, there should be some consequence to that.  Lost draft picks or something to that effect.

All that said, deflated balls had nothing to do with the outcome of that came.

11of the 12 balls were deflated. Lost draft picks just like the last time New England cheated.

I agree except this isn't the first time for New England. Yes, they are punished, but they still win.

It would seem to me that cheating, again, would merit a more sever punishment.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

A NASCAR Sprint car can, legally, adjust the pressure in their tires.  They can adjust the tire pressure in one tire by 1/4 pound and it changes the handling of the car.

His point is that both teams play with the same ball.  Being that the case, where is the advantage?

They did NOT play with the same ball.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

A NASCAR Sprint car can, legally, adjust the pressure in their tires.  They can adjust the tire pressure in one tire by 1/4 pound and it changes the handling of the car.

His point is that both teams play with the same ball.  Being that the case, where is the advantage?

They did NOT play with the same ball.

I haven't read any reports that state one team played with deflated balls and other with regulation. Have you? If so, where?

Each team provides 12 balls to be used by their offense.

PkrBum wrote:Each team provides 12 balls to be used by their offense.

Yes sir.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Sal wrote:How does deflating the balls benefit the home team but not the visitors?

It really doesn't unless it one QB prefers a deflated ball while the other prefers regulation.  This is probably only making headlines because it involves New England.  Had this been any other team we wouldn't be hearing about it.

It makes a huge difference.  A ball  with two pounds less air makes the ball slightly softer and easier to hold to pass.  A softer ball is also easier to catch.

Easier to grip is a major advantage.  ESPECIALLY when you're talking about professional players.

Both teams are playing with the same balls, so they both benefit from the same inflation.  I pointed out that - being that the case - the only advantage there would be if one team preferred to play with an underinflated ball and the other did not.  Then there would exist an advantage for the team that prefers the underinflated ball.  

Wrong!


From the link I provided......

Sources earlier this season told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that the Colts had concerns about underinflated balls after their regular-season game against the visiting Patriots on Nov. 16.
During that game, Colts safety Mike Adams twice intercepted Tom Brady and gave the balls to the Colts' equipment manager to save -- and both times there were concerns about the balls feeling underinflated, sources told Schefter.

Those sources said the Colts raised concerns to the league, which was aware of the issue going into this weekend's AFC title game.
Yet to be determined is what, if any, penalties may be imposed upon the Patriots. One source described the league as "disappointed ... angry ... distraught" after spending considerable time on the findings earlier Tuesday.
Part of the investigation that needs further vetting is how the 11 footballs became underinflated.
The balls are required to be inflated between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch and weigh between 14 and 15 ounces. Once approved by the referee, the balls are then put into ball bags and are set on the sidelines for each team. The ball bags are not guarded or watched in any way. When an official calls for a new football, a team's designated ball boy will get a new football from the ball bag and give it to the official.


AP Photo/Matt SlocumEleven of the Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what's required by NFL regulations during the AFC Championship Game against the Colts, according to league sources.

"We have been in complete cooperation with the league and will continue to do so," James said.
The NFL began looking into the issue because doctoring the footballs could provide a competitive advantage, compromising the integrity of the game.
Deflating a football can change the way it's gripped by a player or the way it travels through the air. Under NFL rules, each team provides balls each game for use when its offense is on the field. 

I stand corrected.

Considering the league was aware of issues prior to the game regarding illegal football inflation....a penalty should be given. The loss of a Super Bowl entry would be fitting. New England cheated plain and simple. Considering the wind and rain they had the advantage.

Take away a draft pick. The outcome of the game wasn't affected at all.

In an NBC poll, 81% think the Pats should be "banned" from the Super Bowl.

lmao

They have had a draft pick taken away before.

Actually, they should just have the officials provide all footballs. Neither team gets to possess them at any point outside of regulation play. Problem solved.

Let New England keep the draft pick.

The end justifies any means... we get it.

PkrBum wrote:The end justifies any means... we get it.

No. I'm saying fix the issue that potentially led to this story to begin with. Why on earth should each team get to provide balls used in regulation? There should be some officiating control there that prevents this sort of thing entirely.

Have the officials inflate and provide the game balls and then we can all get back to watching the game instead of arguing over the influence of 2 psi in a blowout game.

Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

PkrBum wrote:Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

$$$$$$$$ huge profits justify field deportment.

PkrBum wrote:Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

We don't know that the players for New England were even aware of this. If the players on the field had no knowledge of ball tampering, how would keeping them out of the super bowl be ethical? How do we even know that ball tampering even happened at all? There could exist some explanation that would tell us why the balls were underinflated.

And, again, it certainly didn't impact the game. Indianapolis only put up 7 with their own balls.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

We don't know that the players for New England were even aware of this.  If the players on the field had no knowledge of ball tampering, how would keeping them out of the super bowl be ethical?  How do we even know that ball tampering even happened at all?  There could exist some explanation that would tell us why the balls were underinflated.

And, again, it certainly didn't impact the game.  Indianapolis only put up 7 with their own balls.

Oh....just like I said before you never played sports. A seasoned quarterback with more than 10 years experience knows the feel of the ball. The Colts player, when he intercepted the ball in a previous game, knew something wasn't right. 

Can you tell when a basketball is underinflated....(hint)  it looses maximum bounce.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

We don't know that the players for New England were even aware of this. If the players on the field had no knowledge of ball tampering, how would keeping them out of the super bowl be ethical? How do we even know that ball tampering even happened at all? There could exist some explanation that would tell us why the balls were underinflated.

And, again, it certainly didn't impact the game. Indianapolis only put up 7 with their own balls.

You can't know the impact. How many standard deviations from average to you suppose 11 out of 12 lose inflation?

Since this isn't the first mention... brady must prefer less inflation. What would happen if a golfer used an illegal club?

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Pull the money out of the equation... and the ethical thing to do would be to forfeit their win. Screw cheaters.

We don't know that the players for New England were even aware of this.  If the players on the field had no knowledge of ball tampering, how would keeping them out of the super bowl be ethical?  How do we even know that ball tampering even happened at all?  There could exist some explanation that would tell us why the balls were underinflated.

And, again, it certainly didn't impact the game.  Indianapolis only put up 7 with their own balls.

Oh....just like I said before you never played sports. A seasoned quarterback with more than 10 years experience knows the feel of the ball. The Colts player, when he intercepted the ball in a previous game, knew something wasn't right. 

Can you tell when a basketball is underinflated....(hint)  it looses maximum bounce.

I have played sports all my life - not that that has anything to do with the subject at hand.

If I'm Tom Brady and I happen to feel that the ball may be underinflated (and, assuming that is my preference), but at the same time I know that the officials test the level of inflation prior to the game, am I going to say anything? No. Would anyone say anything? Probably not. Would you say anything?

If the players weren't in on this and if it is understood by everyone that the balls are tested prior to the game, there is absolutely no reason to bring up the point that you feel the ball may be underinflated unless that presents a problem to you.