Vikings Message Board.Com

Crax wrote:Fill 11 of the balls at 12.6 indoors. Fill 1 designated kicking ball at 13.4. Keep the kicking ball warm so it doesn't lose pressure. Everything is within range to start the game, but the 11 will all end up under on a cold day.

And yet the same cold didn't impact the Colts balls at all. But impacted 91% of the Patriots balls.

Cliff wrote: And yet the same cold didn't impact the Colts balls at all. But impacted 91% of the Patriots balls.

Fill all the colts at max acceptable pressure before game? I haven't head anything related to the actual levels. Were the ones that were under like 11.5? 9? 12.2? How much under is under?

Mothman wrote: I think I'm missing your point. The NE defense wouldn't have a competitive advantage over the Colts offense in that circumstance so if the Colts offense was using properly-inflated footballs, how would that make things easier on the Patriots defense? Wouldn't it just mean they were facing the circumstances they were supposed to be facing?

The NE defense would have a competitive advantage compared to the Colts defense. So while the Patriots could more easily complete a pass with a partially deflated ball (a black mark on the Colts defense) the Colts receiver may have dropped the same pass or perhaps Luck wouldn't have been able to throw it properly in the first place. In other words, Tom Brady's passing stats might look more like Luck's and the Colt's defense might have looked equally as impressive as the Patriots.

Again, I'm not saying that 100% would have happened, just that cheating leaves the possibility open.

Point taken but I find it very difficult to believe that under-inflated footballs had much, if anything, to do with that advantage, especially because I saw the Pats beating the Colts at the line for the majority of the game. If the Patriots were cheating, I don't know why they bothered. Maybe it's a compulsion Belichick can't resist or something because I just don't think they need that kind of "help" and the risk doesn't seem worth whatever slight reward it might provide.

As it turns out, no, they didn't need to cheat, but they didn't know to start the game they didn't need to.

I guess the cheating just doesn't sit well with me even though it likely didn't alter this particular game. Would it be a bigger problem if the game had been closer?

Crax wrote: Fill all the colts at max acceptable pressure before game? I haven't head anything related to the actual levels. Were the ones that were under like 11.5? 9? 12.2? How much under is under?

I would like to know that as well. Just how much under regulation were they?

I'll say this much; it was noticeable enough that the Colt's player that intercepted the ball noticed right away and reported it.

Cliff wrote: I'll say this much; it was noticeable enough that the Colt's player that intercepted the ball noticed right away and reported it.

The refs handle the balls before and after every snap. If it was really bad, shouldn't the refs have noticed it already? I have a hard time believing it was some huge advantage. I hate playing with overinflated footballs, but under aren't great either.

Crax wrote: The refs handle the balls before and after every snap. If it was really bad, shouldn't the refs have noticed it already? I have a hard time believing it was some huge advantage. I hate playing with overinflated footballs, but under aren't great either.

Under-inflating balls for an advantage isn't unprecedented. Other teams (at least in the collage ranks) have been caught doing it before too and there's a reason they have regulations for it in place.

As far as the refs not knowing - good questions. Perhaps they're just not gripping them as hard as the players do?

I also found the answer to how deflated they were; 2lbs per square inch. Honestly though, I don't know what that means exactly. So 10.6 PSI instead of 12.6?

Cliff wrote:As far as the refs not knowing - good questions. Perhaps they're just not gripping them as hard as the players do?
I also found the answer to how deflated they were; 2lbs per square inch. Honestly though, I don't know what that means exactly. So 10.6 PSI instead of 12.6?

Well, the regulation is 12.5-13.5 PSI, so I guess 10.5 PSI? All 11 were exactly the same though?

I didn't read the other replies yet, but don't they rotate the balls in and out all game? So wouldn't Indy have been able to play with the underinflated balls too?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Cliff wrote: The NE defense would have a competitive advantage compared to the Colts defense. So while the Patriots could more easily complete a pass with a partially deflated ball (a black mark on the Colts defense) the Colts receiver may have dropped the same pass or perhaps Luck wouldn't have been able to throw it properly in the first place. In other words, Tom Brady's passing stats might look more like Luck's and the Colt's defense might have looked equally as impressive as the Patriots.

Again, I'm not saying that 100% would have happened, just that cheating leaves the possibility open.

I see what you mean now but it seems to me the only real advantage would have been to the NE offense. Their defense gained no advantage over the Colts offense. I understand your point about an uneven playing field but in the end, that really just points back to NE's offense.

As it turns out, no, they didn't need to cheat, but they didn't know to start the game they didn't need to.

I meant it in a larger sense: I doubt that team has ever really needed to cheat.

I guess the cheating just doesn't sit well with me even though it likely didn't alter this particular game. Would it be a bigger problem if the game had been closer?

I just have a hard time believing under-inflated footballs (but not so under-inflated that it was easily noticed) make all that much difference to pro players. I'm not condoning cheating, if that's what happened. It doesn't sit well with me either. As I said, If it's determined that the Patriots cheated they should face appropriate consequences. It will be interesting to get the full story... if it was intentional, who did it and who (if anyone) ordered it done?

Crax wrote: Well, the regulation is 12.5-13.5 PSI, so I guess 10.5 PSI? All 11 were exactly the same though?

Yes, they were all the same according to an article I found;

Last night’s bombshell from Chris Mortensen of ESPN — that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs from Sunday’s AFC title game were underinflated by two pounds per square inch of pressure — has pushed #Deflategate to new heights, causing many to presume that these measurements mean that the Patriots deliberately deflated the balls.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... flategate/

The article also raises your question about the refs. It brings up other interesting questions too.

Mothman wrote: I just have a hard time believing under-inflated footballs (but not so under-inflated that it was easily noticed) make all that much difference to pro players. I'm not condoning cheating, if that's what happened. It doesn't sit well with me either. As I said, If it's determined that the Patriots cheated they should face appropriate consequences. It will be interesting to get the full story... if it was intentional, who did it and who (if anyone) ordered it done?

I don't know what difference it might make. If they did it on purpose though, apparently a significant enough one.

How easy it was to determine is open for debate. All we know is that the refs didn't notice or say anything ... but they aren't taking hundreds of reps with a properly filled football all week every week during the season.

Technically, the first time a non-New England player or ref touched the ball it was noticed ...

I'm guessing even if it proves true we won't know if it was ordered or not.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Cheating allegations come up way too frequently around Belichek for this to be just another innocent mistake IMHO, but it deserves investigation.

VikingLord wrote:Where there's smoke, there's fire. Cheating allegations come up way too frequently around Belichek for this to be just another innocent mistake IMHO, but it deserves investigation.

I agree.

I don't think air pressure creates wins.....it creates favorable opportunities, I guess. It doesn't create 140+yds and 3 tds for Blount either.

I don't know what you can do for this game as far as current rules go, but when players get caught doing something to give them a competitive edge(PEDS) they get suspended.

If anything should come from this I hope it's some consistent penalty for this kind of tactic, circumventing agreed upon rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. I think part of what might embolden a team to doing something of this nature, and there could be many teams having done it, is that there is no real punishment prescribed for the spirit of the infraction.

I think I read that messing with the ball is a $25,000 fine? That needs to be changed if true.

There's a fine line between gamesmanship and cheating. IMO ,cheating should be heavily penalized regardless of how effective the cheat is.

Brad Johnson bribed people to doctor balls for the Super Bowl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

frosted wrote:Brad Johnson bribed people to doctor balls for the Super Bowl

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are there rules against scuffing up the ball? If so, I'm no more fond of that. He played with an advantage the other team didn't have an opportunity to duplicate. If it's not against the rules and the other team simply didn't want to do the same thing, I feel that's different from this situation.

There are specific rules for ball air pressure and I think it's fair to assume the Colts would have changed the ball to be more friendly to their offense in those conditions if adjusting it were allowed.