Deflategate

[Chitownhustla]

Agreed.

 

Yes to both your PSI questions. Peanut punch is predicated on the ball not being so malleable. It's easier to knock an inflated handball out of someone's hands, than a deflated one. Football is no different. It's not impossible, but there is an advantage ot the ball carrier. From my limited time playing football, I know that a softer ball is harder to dislodge. Not impossible, but harder. And when dealing with the extreme strength in the NFL on both sides, an advantage like that could be why the Pat's don't lose many turnovers at home...

 

Bottom line. Have a buddy hold a basketball and try to punch it out. You probably will succeed 10% of the time. Not try it with a bean bag. You will probably never succeed. The reality is it does make it harder...the question is depending on how much less, does it truly have an impact? We don't really know. But logic dictates that it would. Boxing is the same. when I punch a bag that inflated, it moves, when it's not...it kind of just crushes inside. It simply had to make a difference of some percentage. And football is a game of inches...

 

Comparing a basketball to bean bag not similar to a football 1 PSI off, because from one article I read it was not 2 psi off only 1psi off. Grab two football's one at 12.5 psi and one at 11.5 psi......We are not talking about a huge difference. The difference between 2psi and 1 psi will not make the difference between winning and losing. If it was such a huge difference why did the Pats pull away in the 2nd half after the balls were inflated????????? If its such a huge advantage the Pats should have crumbled, fumbled, thrown some INT's.

 

The exact opposite happened, it's why Im saying the game is not won because of how many PSI's the football has.

 

Brady had a way better half with the inflated balls. Blount didnt fumble while running it down the Colts throats. The PSI of those footballs didnt not affect the outcome of that game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Comparing a basketball to bean bag not similar to a football 1 PSI off, because from one article I read it was not 2 psi off only 1psi off. Grab two football's one at 12.5 psi and one at 11.5 psi......We are not talking about a huge difference. The difference between 2psi and 1 psi will not make the difference between winning and losing. If it was such a huge difference why did the Pats pull away in the 2nd half after the balls were inflated????????? If its such a huge advantage the Pats should have crumbled, fumbled, thrown some INT's.

 

The exact opposite happened, it's why Im saying the game is not won because of how many PSI's the football has.

 

Brady had a way better half with the inflated balls. Blount didnt fumble while running it down the Colts throats. The PSI of those footballs didnt not affect the outcome of that game.

 

I think what is getting lost in all this is not so much how the game was affected. But rather that it even came up and when faced with the accusation, Brady did not truthfully answer (my opinion) about his involvement. I'm relatively confident that Belichick may not have as much liability. But am concerned that if a ball boy takes the fall, that is sad and a measure of the organization and the league.

 

One thing that does bother me is the recent press conference where Robert Craft basically says everyone owes them an apology, especially Belichck and Brady, for this occurring. Like the investigation is over and pretty much challenges anyone to say otherwise. Talk about arrogance.

[madlithuanian]

My example shows the extremes which means it does make a difference. The question is how much of one.

 

The Pats pulled away in the 2nd half because they were a superior team that didn't need to allegedly muck with PSI. I don't think there's a soul on earth with any football acumen that argues that the Colts didn't deserve to lose regardless of PSI or not. They were an inferior team.

 

The bigger question is did it matter against the Ravens...where the game was far closer?

 

And has it mattered in aggregate over the course of many years?

 

I really do not know for sure, but it would seem that a small advantage is gained by using a softer ball. Is it a small 1%? or 5%? But in a close game, which we all hear is a "game of inches". that 1% could make enough difference over time.

 

 

Comparing a basketball to bean bag not similar to a football 1 PSI off, because from one article I read it was not 2 psi off only 1psi off. Grab two football's one at 12.5 psi and one at 11.5 psi......We are not talking about a huge difference. The difference between 2psi and 1 psi will not make the difference between winning and losing. If it was such a huge difference why did the Pats pull away in the 2nd half after the balls were inflated????????? If its such a huge advantage the Pats should have crumbled, fumbled, thrown some INT's.

 

The exact opposite happened, it's why Im saying the game is not won because of how many PSI's the football has.

 

Brady had a way better half with the inflated balls. Blount didnt fumble while running it down the Colts throats. The PSI of those footballs didnt not affect the outcome of that game.

[madlithuanian]

You know when we agree, it's gotta either be true or it's getting cooler in hell!

 

 

I completely agree. To me, the NFL has royally screwed up another thing...

 

I think what is getting lost in all this is not so much how the game was affected. But rather that it even came up and when faced with the accusation, Brady did not truthfully answer (my opinion) about his involvement. I'm relatively confident that Belichick may not have as much liability. But am concerned that if a ball boy takes the fall, that is sad and a measure of the organization and the league.

 

One thing that does bother me is the recent press conference where Robert Craft basically says everyone owes them an apology, especially Belichck and Brady, for this occurring. Like the investigation is over and pretty much challenges anyone to say otherwise. Talk about arrogance.

 

[AZ54]

Comparing a basketball to bean bag not similar to a football 1 PSI off, because from one article I read it was not 2 psi off only 1psi off. Grab two football's one at 12.5 psi and one at 11.5 psi......We are not talking about a huge difference. The difference between 2psi and 1 psi will not make the difference between winning and losing. If it was such a huge difference why did the Pats pull away in the 2nd half after the balls were inflated????????? If its such a huge advantage the Pats should have crumbled, fumbled, thrown some INT's.

 

The exact opposite happened, it's why Im saying the game is not won because of how many PSI's the football has.

 

Brady had a way better half with the inflated balls. Blount didnt fumble while running it down the Colts throats. The PSI of those footballs didnt not affect the outcome of that game.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone anywhere on the planet say the Patriots beat the Colts because of the football pressure.

[Chitownhustla]

I haven't seen anyone anywhere on the planet say the Patriots beat the Colts because of the football pressure.

Its on the news all day, even Fox News. Its being made into this HUGE deal. I can understand it being this big of s deal if it had anything to with deciding the outcome of the game,

 

Madlith mentioned that the advantage may have helped with the outcome of the Ravens game. A game of inches....

 

 

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Yes to both your PSI questions. Peanut punch is predicated on the ball not being so malleable. It's easier to knock an inflated handball out of someone's hands, than a deflated one. Football is no different. It's not impossible, but there is an advantage ot the ball carrier. From my limited time playing football, I know that a softer ball is harder to dislodge. Not impossible, but harder. And when dealing with the extreme strength in the NFL on both sides, an advantage like that could be why the Pat's don't lose many turnovers at home...

 

absoultely agree. great point on the home games.

 

My example shows the extremes which means it does make a difference. The question is how much of one.

 

The Pats pulled away in the 2nd half because they were a superior team that didn't need to allegedly muck with PSI. I don't think there's a soul on earth with any football acumen that argues that the Colts didn't deserve to lose regardless of PSI or not. They were an inferior team.

 

the colts were only down by 10 points at halftime.

 

what IF...??...

1. the pats would have had a pick six or two in the first half because brady couldn't control the ball as well due to rain and cold and it effected his accuracy.

 

2. the receivers couldn't hang onto the ball as effectiveley on any number of plays killing a drive or bouncing in the air for an INT.

 

3. the pats RB fumbled once or twice killing a drive or actually giving up points to the defense.

 

this would have changed the entire complexity and flow of the game going in at half if say the colts were ahead by 10.

 

so would the outcome of the game have changed in the end? it 'COULD' have. maybe or probably not but 'COULD' have.

 

this is why cheating in any form is completely intolerable and should be treated as such. there is always the 'what IF' factor involved.

 

in conclusion there are NO gray area's in this respect in sports what-so-ever. you cheat and are caught you are put between the hammer and the anvil... you are done.

 

The bigger question is did it matter against the Ravens...where the game was far closer?

 

And has it mattered in aggregate over the course of many years?

 

I really do not know for sure, but it would seem that a small advantage is gained by using a softer ball. Is it a small 1%? or 5%? But in a close game, which we all hear is a "game of inches". that 1% could make enough difference over time.

 

brady HAD to know without any doubt. can you imagine an equipment person in the locker room taking it upon himself without brady's knowledge to adjust the pressure of new englands footballs in a playoff game (only if he hated the pats, was insane and had a death wish)?

 

belicek knew. he claims to know everything that is going on according to the rule book. can you imagine belli never wondering about the game balls before gametime and what the officials did with and to them? LOL!!

 

even IF by some miracle belli didn't know, he is just as guilty for covering it up as brady. that would in itself make him culpable as a liar and a thief just like the cheese head kraft.

[madlithuanian]

I think your stance is a lot harsher than mine! You put out a lot of compelling arguments that reason out your take.

 

My wife made a good joke to me this morning...with all the talk of balls, why don't we just watch the Pussy Cat Bowl on Animal Planet? I think I'm sold...

 

absoultely agree. great point on the home games.

 

 

 

the colts were only down by 10 points at halftime.

 

what IF...??...

1. the pats would have had a pick six or two in the first half because brady couldn't control the ball as well due to rain and cold and it effected his accuracy.

 

2. the receivers couldn't hang onto the ball as effectiveley on any number of plays killing a drive or bouncing in the air for an INT.

 

3. the pats RB fumbled once or twice killing a drive or actually giving up points to the defense.

 

this would have changed the entire complexity and flow of the game going in at half if say the colts were ahead by 10.

 

so would the outcome of the game have changed in the end? it 'COULD' have. maybe or probably not but 'COULD' have.

 

this is why cheating in any form is completely intolerable and should be treated as such. there is always the 'what IF' factor involved.

 

in conclusion there are NO gray area's in this respect in sports what-so-ever. you cheat and are caught you are put between the hammer and the anvil... you are done.

 

 

 

brady HAD to know without any doubt. can you imagine an equipment person in the locker room taking it upon himself without brady's knowledge to adjust the pressure of new englands footballs in a playoff game (only if he hated the pats, was insane and had a death wish)?

 

belicek knew. he claims to know everything that is going on according to the rule book. can you imagine belli never wondering about the game balls before gametime and what the officials did with and to them? LOL!!

 

even IF by some miracle belli didn't know, he is just as guilty for covering it up as brady. that would in itself make him culpable as a liar and a thief just like the cheese head kraft.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

I think your stance is a lot harsher than mine! You put out a lot of compelling arguments that reason out your take.

 

My wife made a good joke to me this morning...with all the talk of balls, why don't we just watch the Pussy Cat Bowl on Animal Planet? I think I'm sold...

 

speaking of superbowls (or pussy cat bowls)....

 

remember the SF 49ers cheating by circumventing the salary cap in the 1990's? an incredible advantage when you can keep all of your primo players intact on the team by cheating.

 

carmen policy was brought up on charges for this for the 1997 season. it is also *suspected, and rightly so, that this had been going on for some years. maybe even since the cap was instituted in 1994 when the 9ers won superbowl XXIX by beating the chargers.

 

remember 1994?.... what 'IF'...

 

the chicago bears (a 9-7 wildcard team) did NOT play the SF 49ers in candlestick on january 7, 1995 in a wildcard/division champion playoff game and beat who 'MIGHT' have been a different division champion ('POSSIBLY' the dallas cowboys who wanny actually seemed able to beat on a regular basis)?

 

'COULD' the bears have ended up beating the chargers in superbowl XXIX that year?

 

not saying they would have even got there but do you see all of the 'what IF's, 'COULD be's or 'MAYBE'S involved here? all because the 49ers cheated? that is the reality of dishonesty in sports.

 

 

* Several owners, including the Raiders' Al Davis, have been outspoken about the issue dragging on so long. They believe the 49ers got a competitive advantage by cheating on the cap. Some also have claimed the 49ers cheated on the cap to win their last Super Bowl after the 1994 season, but that's not at issue here. The alleged violations occurred in 1997, a year in which the 49ers lost in the NFC Championship Game. - SFGATE Friday, August 11, 2000

 

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/49ers...ard-2709726.php

[Alaskan Grizzly]

So if the deflated ball debacle wasn't enough, how about this?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/the-other...502306-nfl.html

 

Now I'm not at all a conspiracy theorist BUT isn't it possible this borders on "tampering"? Or am I totally misunderstanding the rule?

[BearFan2000]

I think the solution is to force both teams to use the exact same set of balls, eliminating catering to QB's and their preferences. It's simply dumb that this is how it's done and it led to one side, it appears, taking advantage of the situation. If this were a one time thing, only the Indy game, I'd agree with you 110%. But it appears they've been doing this for a long time now and small advantages can be the difference in games. The Baltimore game the week before the Indy game, for example, comes to mind.

 

Or you make the acceptable inflation range wider. I don't care if Brady wants the balls more deflated, I doubt many in the league would. Then again, if it gives Pats WR's and RB's a better grip on the ball than other teams, helping them to have fewer turnovers, it might be a BIG problem.

 

At the end of the day I'm enjoying the cheater reputation the Pats are getting because while I respect them as an organization, I don't like most of their team. Arrogant dicks, all. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

 

Whatever the rules are, all teams should be forced to follow them. If they're caught cheating, the Commissioner has a duty to punish them. I think in this case that'll come in the form of lost draft picks. Just my guess. He isn't going to let them call out some ball boy as their patsy and let this go. But we'll see.

 

The point about the Indy game likely not the only time they've pulled this they just happened to get caught doing in the indy game. That often gets lost because the Indy game was such a lopsided win that "it does't matter" because it had no bearing on the game. True, but if they have in fact been doing that regularly you only need to look one game back to where something like this could indeed have had an impact on the outcome. And the impact is greater than just a game or that they deflated balls, it's that the Patriots have a history of cutting corners, and cheating, and they get little more than a slap on the wrist. The pats from top to bottom are a win at all costs organization and will take any opportunity to get a competitive edge in any phase of the game or business. Then you have Bilecheat and Brady up there acting like they didn't even know there were rules about it and knew nothing about it when a week earlier they were bragging about how well they know the rule book and how smart they are. They are quite content to act dumb, and let anyone but them take the fall for it. That to me more reprehensible than the act itself. I too am sick of hearing about this every friggin day it's all over the news it's every where you turn.

[CrackerDog]

So if the deflated ball debacle wasn't enough, how about this?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/the-other...502306-nfl.html

 

Now I'm not at all a conspiracy theorist BUT isn't it possible this borders on "tampering"? Or am I totally misunderstanding the rule?

 

That would certainly qualify as tampering.

[madlithuanian]

You're right! I totally forgot about those 90's 9'ers.

 

 

 

speaking of superbowls (or pussy cat bowls)....

 

remember the SF 49ers cheating by circumventing the salary cap in the 1990's? an incredible advantage when you can keep all of your primo players intact on the team by cheating.

 

carmen policy was brought up on charges for this for the 1997 season. it is also *suspected, and rightly so, that this had been going on for some years. maybe even since the cap was instituted in 1994 when the 9ers won superbowl XXIX by beating the chargers.

 

remember 1994?.... what 'IF'...

 

the chicago bears (a 9-7 wildcard team) did NOT play the SF 49ers in candlestick on january 7, 1995 in a wildcard/division champion playoff game and beat who 'MIGHT' have been a different division champion ('POSSIBLY' the dallas cowboys who wanny actually seemed able to beat on a regular basis)?

 

'COULD' the bears have ended up beating the chargers in superbowl XXIX that year?

 

not saying they would have even got there but do you see all of the 'what IF's, 'COULD be's or 'MAYBE'S involved here? all because the 49ers cheated? that is the reality of dishonesty in sports.

 

 

* Several owners, including the Raiders' Al Davis, have been outspoken about the issue dragging on so long. They believe the 49ers got a competitive advantage by cheating on the cap. Some also have claimed the 49ers cheated on the cap to win their last Super Bowl after the 1994 season, but that's not at issue here. The alleged violations occurred in 1997, a year in which the 49ers lost in the NFC Championship Game. - SFGATE Friday, August 11, 2000

 

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/49ers...ard-2709726.php

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

That would certainly qualify as tampering.

 

Should it be titled; "Tampergate"? (Thought you might appreciate that).

 

[adam]

Everything is a gate nowadays. So I guess it was a water scandal in the 1970's.

 

The Blount thing is crazy. So you purposely get released by a team to go back to your old one without any repercussions? They should prevent this from occurring in the future. The Blount-Rule to prevent a Blountgate.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Soooo....thought I'd repin, repost or whatever it is you do to bring up an old topic. With the news of the 'investigation' being completed I'm curious now what thoughts are. And more importantly what should be done? Does Brady suffer some sort of setback for his wiliness to evade the truth? Or is it all on the team?

[CrackerDog]

Soooo....thought I'd repin, repost or whatever it is you do to bring up an old topic. With the news of the 'investigation' being completed I'm curious now what thoughts are. And more importantly what should be done? Does Brady suffer some sort of setback for his wiliness to evade the truth? Or is it all on the team?

 

All I've seen is a few texts between a few ball guys suggesting Brady was implicated. But no smoking gun. If there is PROOF I think they suspend him. But with what I've seen, I think the commish will remain ball-free.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

All I've seen is a few texts between a few ball guys suggesting Brady was implicated. But no smoking gun. If there is PROOF I think they suspend him. But with what I've seen, I think the commish will remain ball-free.

Gotta love the Cracker Dog way to an answer.... (bolded).

 

Have to say that with words like "...Brady PROBABLY was aware..." I'm convinced not much more will come of it. Oh well, wash our hands and move along.

[AZ54]

Soooo....thought I'd repin, repost or whatever it is you do to bring up an old topic. With the news of the 'investigation' being completed I'm curious now what thoughts are. And more importantly what should be done? Does Brady suffer some sort of setback for his wiliness to evade the truth? Or is it all on the team?

 

My thoughts remain the same. Brady cheated and the Commish will let him and his buddy Kraft get away with it. For all those who state there is no "proof" realize that the majority of criminal trials are won based on circumstantial evidence. Since this was not a trial the only conclusion this report can state is that the circumstantial evidence shows he at a least generally knew what was going on. By the way, domestic violence is a huge issue in the NFL and here on the board yet most cases are based on circumstantial evidence. Ray Rice with the video being one exception.

 

In this case there was substantial circumstantial evidence in the amount of tampered footballs that were on the New England sideline and none that were on the Colts sideline after both groups were validated by the officiating crew. It's a statistical improbability for that to happen by a random event.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

https://sites.google.com/a/colemantech-high...antial-evidence

Circumstantial evidence is used mostly used in criminal cases. It is false that circumstantial evidence is way less useful then direct evidence it is quite the contrary in fact more cases are won with circumstantial evidence than with direct evidence.

 

The Scott Peterson trial is a perfect example of using purely circumstantial evidence to win a case.Scott was accused for the murder of his wife and their unborn baby and then dumping them in the sea.The prosecution used his wife’s DNA on his boat and homemade cement anchors as their key circumstantial evidence. Other circumstantial evidence they found was what he was carrying with him when he was arrested, with things that was suspicious like four different cellphones 15,000 dollars and dyed hair. They were circumstantial because both with both pieces of evidence the jury had to infer what happened which is the basic definition for circumstantial evidence.Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

As Ryan Clark said on ESPN: "Every quarterback knows how his balls feel." The commissioner delayed this entire investigation for months and released it only after the draft and at the beginning of the dog days of summer. He will let Brady off with, at best, a small fine or maybe do something stupid like suspending him for a preseason game.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

My thoughts remain the same. Brady cheated and the Commish will let him and his buddy Kraft get away with it. For all those who state there is no "proof" realize that the majority of criminal trials are won based on circumstantial evidence. Since this was not a trial the only conclusion this report can state is that the circumstantial evidence shows he at a least generally knew what was going on. By the way, domestic violence is a huge issue in the NFL and here on the board yet most cases are based on circumstantial evidence. Ray Rice with the video being one exception.

 

In this case there was substantial circumstantial evidence in the amount of tampered footballs that were on the New England sideline and none that were on the Colts sideline after both groups were validated by the officiating crew. It's a statistical improbability for that to happen by a random event.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

https://sites.google.com/a/colemantech-high...antial-evidence

Circumstantial evidence is used mostly used in criminal cases. It is false that circumstantial evidence is way less useful then direct evidence it is quite the contrary in fact more cases are won with circumstantial evidence than with direct evidence.

 

The Scott Peterson trial is a perfect example of using purely circumstantial evidence to win a case.Scott was accused for the murder of his wife and their unborn baby and then dumping them in the sea.The prosecution used his wife’s DNA on his boat and homemade cement anchors as their key circumstantial evidence. Other circumstantial evidence they found was what he was carrying with him when he was arrested, with things that was suspicious like four different cellphones 15,000 dollars and dyed hair. They were circumstantial because both with both pieces of evidence the jury had to infer what happened which is the basic definition for circumstantial evidence.Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

As Ryan Clark said on ESPN: "Every quarterback knows how his balls feel." The commissioner delayed this entire investigation for months and released it only after the draft and at the beginning of the dog days of summer. He will let Brady off with, at best, a small fine or maybe do something stupid like suspending him for a preseason game.

 

Well played AZ. As frustrating as it is, I had no doubt in my mind that Brady knew this was going on when he was first confronted then emphatically replied that he knew nothing of it. His lie was almost too transparent . Be that as it may, nothing more than a slap on a wrist will be felt by Brady whereas I fear the employment termination of a few equipment guys is looming. Sad.

[madlithuanian]

agreed...

 

Well played AZ. As frustrating as it is, I had no doubt in my mind that Brady knew this was going on when he was first confronted then emphatically replied that he knew nothing of it. His lie was almost too transparent . Be that as it may, nothing more than a slap on a wrist will be felt by Brady whereas I fear the employment termination of a few equipment guys is looming. Sad.

 

['TD']

With them winning the Super Bowl, I'm not sure how they could punish them. They blew this off till after the draft, and I think New England should lose that super bowl win record wise, Brady should be suspended for a year and the team hit with fines and lost draft picks. I don't think they will do it.

[jason]

speaking of superbowls (or pussy cat bowls)....

 

remember the SF 49ers cheating by circumventing the salary cap in the 1990's? an incredible advantage when you can keep all of your primo players intact on the team by cheating.

 

carmen policy was brought up on charges for this for the 1997 season. it is also *suspected, and rightly so, that this had been going on for some years. maybe even since the cap was instituted in 1994 when the 9ers won superbowl XXIX by beating the chargers.

 

remember 1994?.... what 'IF'...

 

the chicago bears (a 9-7 wildcard team) did NOT play the SF 49ers in candlestick on january 7, 1995 in a wildcard/division champion playoff game and beat who 'MIGHT' have been a different division champion ('POSSIBLY' the dallas cowboys who wanny actually seemed able to beat on a regular basis)?

 

'COULD' the bears have ended up beating the chargers in superbowl XXIX that year?

 

not saying they would have even got there but do you see all of the 'what IF's, 'COULD be's or 'MAYBE'S involved here? all because the 49ers cheated? that is the reality of dishonesty in sports.

 

 

* Several owners, including the Raiders' Al Davis, have been outspoken about the issue dragging on so long. They believe the 49ers got a competitive advantage by cheating on the cap. Some also have claimed the 49ers cheated on the cap to win their last Super Bowl after the 1994 season, but that's not at issue here. The alleged violations occurred in 1997, a year in which the 49ers lost in the NFC Championship Game. - SFGATE Friday, August 11, 2000

 

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/49ers...ard-2709726.php

 

 

I don't give a damn about semi-deflated balls, because I honestly don't think it matters. The PSI difference is negligible, and I can guaran-damn-tee that if the officials felt a ball that was significantly altered - and they handle the ball on every play - they would have chucked it out for another one. That happens on ALL levels.

 

What I do care about is your what-if. I have said the same thing for years. It altered the league dynamics in unfathomable ways.

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't give a damn about semi-deflated balls, because I honestly don't think it matters. The PSI difference is negligible, and I can guaran-damn-tee that if the officials felt a ball that was significantly altered - and they handle the ball on every play - they would have chucked it out for another one. That happens on ALL levels.

 

What I do care about is your what-if. I have said the same thing for years. It altered the league dynamics in unfathomable ways.

 

i TOTALLY disagree. cheating DOES matter even if you believe the PSI is insignificant (i don't agree with you on this either).

 

if there are rules and you violate them purposely then you should pay the consequences and in the NFL you should get the absolute maximum penalty to set the precedence. the league is built on TRUST. not only between the players and franchise owners but especially to the fans of the game. otherwise you end up like boxing throughout the 20th century where criminals in many instances dictated the outcome for monetary gains.

 

once that trust is violated you can never put that genie back into the bottle without serious hard work by the entire NFL environment and even then it leaves the stigma of doubt in peoples minds. without TRUST in sports you have nothing!!!

 

you as a proposed official at a high level SHOULD take this absolutely seriously at every level.

 

what SHOULD be done as i have proposed in the past:

 

1. brady suspended for 1 year with the stipulation of anything in the future he is banned for life. all statistics for the entire season are wiped off the record books.

 

2. billichek (sp) should be banned from the NFL for life as this is the SECOND cheating violation under his watch.

 

3. the patriots should be exempt from any playoff or superbowl games for this season.

 

4. the patriots should lose a #1 draft pick for 2 years.

 

5. kraft should be fined 5-10 million dollars with the threat if the patriots EVER cheat again in any way he loses the franchise. some of this money is paid to the franchises that were effected. the players who lost salary because of this especially.

 

6. the patriots forfeit the superbowl win and it is awarded to the seahawks.

 

 

[jason]

i TOTALLY disagree. cheating DOES matter even if you believe the PSI is insignificant (i don't agree with you on this either).

 

if there are rules and you violate them purposely then you should pay the consequences and in the NFL you should get the absolute maximum penalty to set the precedence. the league is built on TRUST. not only between the players and franchise owners but especially to the fans of the game. otherwise you end up like boxing throughout the 20th century where criminals in many instances dictated the outcome for monetary gains.

 

once that trust is violated you can never put that genie back into the bottle without serious hard work by the entire NFL environment and even then it leaves the stigma of doubt in peoples minds. without TRUST in sports you have nothing!!!

 

you as a proposed official at a high level SHOULD take this absolutely seriously at every level.

 

what SHOULD be done as i have proposed in the past:

 

1. brady suspended for 1 year with the stipulation of anything in the future he is banned for life. all statistics for the entire season are wiped off the record books.

 

2. billichek (sp) should be banned from the NFL for life as this is the SECOND cheating violation under his watch.

 

3. the patriots should be exempt from any playoff or superbowl games for this season.

 

4. the patriots should lose a #1 draft pick for 2 years.

 

5. kraft should be fined 5-10 million dollars with the threat if the patriots EVER cheat again in any way he loses the franchise. some of this money is paid to the franchises that were effected. the players who lost salary because of this especially.

 

6. the patriots forfeit the superbowl win and it is awarded to the seahawks.

 

I don't disagree with your notion that cheating is an important issue and all forms of it are similar, but I'm telling you there is virtually no difference in one PSI, and it wouldn't have made a difference. The officials can tell when a ball is way too deflated, and they would have gotten rid of it. I've felt thousands of footballs from all various locations, teams, and levels...trust me on this.

 

As an official, I see things in terms of "advantage gained." That's why there isn't a holding call on every play. In this case, it was nothing more than a quick jersey tug...no real restriction or advantage.