Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[sharpe1027]

Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.

At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.

So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.

All you ever have is a probability. Sometimes, the probability is so large that we pretend it is absolute, but it never is. Philosophical point aside, the issue is not whether there is direct or indirect evidence, it is what the evidence suggests happened. I believe the relevant standard is more likely than not. If you look at all the data and it suggests that they were more likely than not deflating the balls, then it doesn't matter if the evidence is direct or indirect.

The science doesn't prove tampering, but it doesn't rule it out either.

Let's look at a few other indirect things.

McNally's official job responsibilities did not include preparing, inflating or deflating footballs. It was that of another guy. McNally took the balls without permission of the referees, which allowed him to have access without an official nearby. What was he doing? He should not have had the balls at all.

McNally lied about going to the bathroom when questioned.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about Brady being unhappy about the PSI in the game balls.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about providing a "needle" and about how there better be "cash" or he would overinflate.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how Brady felt McNally "must have a lot of stress trying to get them done."

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how the refs "fucked us" by inflating them.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about "not going to ESPN, yet"

The Wells report simulated the conditions and could not repeat the pressure difference.

[pbmax]

McNally lied about going to the bathroom when questioned.

Was this ever determined? I thought some reports had a commode in there and another report thad said no. But regardless, there are things people can do for 90 seconds that they wouldn't want to reveal that might or might not involve a needle, yet have nothing to do with inflation. But its disconnected to Brady.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about Brady being unhappy about the PSI in the game balls.

That conversation probably happens each week, even before the refs inspect the balls.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about providing a "needle" and about how there better be "cash" or he would overinflate.

Seems like a joke to me.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how Brady felt McNally "must have a lot of stress trying to get them done."

What was the time frame for this one?

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how the refs "fucked us" by inflating them.

See previous instance where they thought the refs had gone nuts and taken them to 16 PSI.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about "not going to ESPN, yet"

Another joke.

The Wells report simulated the conditions and could not repeat the pressure difference.

Other studies were able to duplicate it. With a wet ball, they could get them down 2 PSI in a half of simulated game situation.

The visit to the (non) water closet is the shaky one. And we do not have Brady directly addressing his preference beyond low end of the scale. Now there are three messages unaccounted for that Brady apparently has in his spreadsheet that the Wells report didn't find. If I was the NFL or Brady, I would have spent time looking for them.

I would also be interested to know how the equip guy got his hands on the balls. At one time I read it was a failure of the ref crew to let them out of their sight. Did he really just walk away with them?

[sharpe1027]

Pb, you are a more trusting individual than I am. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[pbmax]

Pb, you are a more trusting individual than I am. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Oh, believe me, I don't don't trust anyone in that organization. Like a NASCAR team, I assume they are all trying to find an edge that skirts the rules and praying people don't find out.

But this isn't about our baseline suspicions, it should be about what can be proven.

But if the NFL and Goodell did not have their heads up their patoots, this would also be about the why. And the answer is that like Rodgers, the Patriots were after the thin line of 12.5 (or 13.5 for Rodgers). But the Patriots wanted to guard against re-inflation by refs during inspection as well (see story of 16 PSI), due to random fluctuation or differences in gauges.

That's what needs to be fixed. A four game suspension is for PR. If game integrity of footballs was truly this important, the competition committee or other teams would have asked for better rules in the first place.

This PFT piece, actually, covers the relevant considerations that should have been covered prior to the freakout, if the inflation of the ball was a paramount importance. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...rop-naturally/

The fact that Vincent (who hopefully never took a physics course at UW-Madison and therefore has an excuse to not know what the Ideal Gas Law is) was unaware of these considerations, shows how monumentally unprepared the League was for this "crisis".

[sharpe1027]

[B]Other studies were able to duplicate it. With a wet ball, they could get them down 2 PSI in a half of simulated game situation.

What studies are you referring to? The one I read had some holes. Notably, the Wells report indicated that the balls were tested indoors and accounted for that warm up time, which makes sense because that is where they test and inflate them before the game.

[pbmax]

What studies are you referring to? The one I read had some holes. Notably, the Wells report indicated that the balls were tested indoors and accounted for that warm up time, which makes sense because that is where they test and inflate them before the game.

Wells report hired Exponent to do the testing and they ignored the temperature changes that would have occurred during halftime while measuring. Patriots balls were measured first (all 12) and then the Colts 4 (3 of which were under inflated). The study did not calculate the effect that the wait had on the Colts footballs.

Here is the study with the info on wet footballs: https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/fi...b%20Report.pdf

from these guys: http://www.headsmartlabs.com

[sharpe1027]

That study doesn't recreate the conditions. For example, they wet the balls and then stick them in a cold room. Likely they did not put them in a room with 100% humdity. In all likelihood it was a low humdity room, meaning the balls would be cooled below room temperature.