[NFL] vBook: Colts vs Patriots (Deflategate)

[gkIrish]

Thank you for that. Now, all rules are meant to ensure a level playing field, right? So don't all rules violations undermine that desired competitive balance to some extent?

I don't understand your question. If you're saying all rule-breaking creates some sort of advantage, then duh.

 

[Monk]

The penalty for Spygate was a 1st round pick and $500K for Belicheat and $250K(?) for Kraft. That evidently wasn't enough to deter him from more shenanigans. A loss of multiple 1st round picks, a post season ban or a combination would seem appropriate this time.

Maybe you are correct, but it did stop them from videotaping any team again. As with penalties called on the field, every infraction should have a penalty equal to the severity of the infraction. So how severe was this infraction? The Patriots did gain an advantage, but is it more of an advantage than knowing the other teams plays? I don't think so, but that is why they pay the commissioner around 45 million dollars a year, to make that decision.

 

[Monk]

When I think "cheating" I think of an intent element. Holding or pass interference lacks that intent because I'm sure the players don't actually want to violate the rules because they don't want to get a penalty.

NBA is a better example. Goaltending is a violation of the rules but how can one say that's "cheating?" Players aren't intentionally trying to goaltend, it just happens. Lowering the rim by two inches on your side of the court would definitely be cheating though because you are clearly trying to gain an advantage.

I still believe goaltending is cheating, whether you willing do it or not it is breaking the rule, which is cheating (I do understand what you are saying and it is borderline). As I stated in my previous post the penalty is determined by the severity of the infraction.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't understand your question. If you're saying all rule-breaking creates some sort of advantage, then duh.

Right. So why are some rule violations considered cheating and some aren't? Why is there a distinction between violations that occur on the field and off of it? That seems arbitrary to me, like a definition that was concocted to produce the result people want with this specific set of circumstances. It seems like a distinction without a practical difference.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Once a cheater. Always a cheater.

That's what my ex's mom used to tell her, anyways.

 

[Bubbles]

The penalty for Spygate was a 1st round pick and $500K for Belicheat and $250K(?) for Kraft. That evidently wasn't enough to deter him from more shenanigans. A loss of multiple 1st round picks, a post season ban or a combination would seem appropriate this time.

Maybe you are correct, but it did stop them from videotaping any team again. As with penalties called on the field, every infraction should have a penalty equal to the severity of the infraction. So how severe was this infraction? The Patriots did gain an advantage, but is it more of an advantage than knowing the other teams plays? I don't think so, but that is why they pay the commissioner around 45 million dollars a year, to make that decision.

You guys know that scouting and taping an opponent isn't illegal, right?

 

[Irish#1]

Maybe you are correct, but it did stop them from videotaping any team again. As with penalties called on the field, every infraction should have a penalty equal to the severity of the infraction. So how severe was this infraction? The Patriots did gain an advantage, but is it more of an advantage than knowing the other teams plays? I don't think so, but that is why they pay the commissioner around 45 million dollars a year, to make that decision.

You know, I never thought about them taping again after being caught. Given this incident with the balls and now that you mention it, it makes you wonder.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Right. So why are some rule violations considered cheating and some aren't? Why is there a distinction between violations that occur on the field and off of it? That seems arbitrary to me, like a definition that was concocted to produce the result people want with this specific set of circumstances. It seems like a distinction without a practical difference to me.

You're obviously on to something with these types of questions. However, I think the answers may not be as cut and dry as you'd like.

There are multiple infractions throughout sporting events. Numerous examples have already been given. All are intentional. Yes, all. And all are done to get a competitive advantage. However, there is an imaginary line of ethics that comes into play where on a case by case basis, some of these infractions are brushed aside as "a part of the game" while others are blatant attempts to destroy what would otherwise be a level playing field.

What the Patriots did, did not alter the outcome of the game. But that shouldn't matter. They blatantly broke the rules and gave themselves a competitive advantage. This is not "a part of the game" infraction. This causes the playing field to not be fair. They should be punished. How? I do not know.

 

[edgesofsanity]

Do you think the line between cheating and regular rules violations should be drawn based on popular public sentiment? That seems intellectually lazy and dangerous.

Of course it's intellectually lazy - philosophers have been debating absolutism vs consequentialism for centuries. And I hope the debate continues for years to come - life is complicated and needs thoughtful inquiries into it.

However - this is not life. This is just a game. Are any football rules truly sacrosanct? Over the last decade the rules have changed to favor offensive numbers because the public seemingly wants it to be more offense charged, and votes with their dollars. Which tells me the NFL is in the business of making money - full stop. Only if something threatens the money, i.e., public fervor, will the NFL as an organization sit up and take notice. So if the public chooses to make a big deal out of this and call it cheating, then cheating it will be.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You know, I never thought about them taping again after being caught. Given this incident with the balls and now that you mention it, it makes you wonder.

I can almost guarantee you that they are. Taping is not illegal. It has always been permitted, but doing it from field level was banned prior to the 2007 season. You were (and still are) permitted to film anything you want from the coach's box or elsewhere in the stadium. The overreaction by the league has allowed this perception to persist that they did something terribly duplicitous, but that just wasn't the case. It was a relatively minor rule violation.

 

[gkIrish]

Right. So why are some rule violations considered cheating and some aren't? Why is there a distinction between violations that occur on the field and off of it? That seems arbitrary to me, like a definition that was concocted to produce the result people want with this specific set of circumstances. It seems like a distinction without a practical difference.

I'm frankly not going to explain to you why this is unethical as compared to other rules violations. It's obvious to everyone who isn't a Patriots fan. Sorry

 

[Monk]

You guys know that scouting and taping an opponent isn't illegal, right?

Sorry I should have said illegally taping teams as they did and were punished for.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You're obviously on to something with these types of questions. However, I think the answers may not be as cut and dry as you'd like.

There are multiple infractions throughout sporting events. Numerous examples have already been given. All are intentional. Yes, all. And all are done to get a competitive advantage. However, there is an imaginary line of ethics that comes into play where on a case by case basis, some of these infractions are brushed aside as "a part of the game" while others are blatant attempts to destroy what would otherwise be a level playing field.

What the Patriots did, did not alter the outcome of the game. But that shouldn't matter. They blatantly broke the rules and gave themselves a competitive advantage. This is not "a part of the game" infraction. This causes the playing field to not be fair.They should be punished. How? I do not know.

This goes a little bit to my point. If you hold, the rulebook calls for a 10 yard penalty. In this case, the rulebook calls for a $25k fine. So why can't they just pay the fine and move on like we do when teams commit penalties? Instead we get all this nauseating moralizing and indignation.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm frankly not going to explain to you why this is unethical as compared to other rules violations. It's obvious to everyone who isn't a Patriots fan. Sorry

Things often feel obvious but that obviousness doesn't hold up on closer inspection. I wish you'd give it a shot. I think you'll find that it isn't as simple as you are assuming.

 

[wizards8507]

Wiz you're cracking me up. You keep ignoring everyone's point about cheating by replying with a math formula, square root or something. Then go to the tried and true, "well everyone else does it" by posting links and quotes. The bottom line is there are specific rules to abide by and it looks like the Pats didn't. As I mentioned before, this is the second time he's been caught, so I'm inclined to believe he's cheated more than these two times.

They're two different issues.

Issue 1: Do I think the Patriots cheated?
No.

Why: Because of the math formula that you don't understand points out that ball deflation is completely plausible without any malfeasance.

Issue 2: Do I think this is is a big deal?
No.

Why: Because teams, players, coaches, and Mother Nature have manipulated and modified footballs since Knute Rockne perfected the forward pass.

 

[Bubbles]

I'm frankly not going to explain to you why this is unethical as compared to other rules violations. It's obvious to everyone who isn't a Patriots fan.

You mean that its the intent of the violation that should be judged, right? So, when johnny LT gets badly beat and holds the DE so that his QB won't get flattened, that is unethical because he INTENDED to commit the violation. On the other hand, if johnny is just sitting there, minding his own business, ends up holding the same DE by accident, through no fault of his own and having nothing to do with gaining an advantage, that's just a simple penalty. Do I have that right?



Of course fans of a team are going to tend to side with that team in EXACTLY the same way that people who dislike that team are going to tend to land on the other side. A little introspection can do wonders.

If someone in the Patriots organization knowingly committed this violation, they should be punished accordingly, as should the organization.

 

[edgesofsanity]

This goes a little bit to my point. If you hold, the rulebook calls for a 10 yard penalty. In this case, the rulebook calls for a $25k fine. So why can't they just pay the fine and move on like we do when teams commit penalties? Instead we get all this nauseating moralizing and indignation.

Great question, and I completely agree. Except one little thing:

If proven that the Patriots underinflated balls, the team faces fines of at least $25,000 and potentially the loss of draft picks.

So it seems that the penalty has wiggle room - it could be more than 25k, and could also include draft picks. I'm sure New England has a vested interest in pushing for the smaller of the penalties, whereas the rest of the NFL has an interest in pushing for higher. So because of that, cue the moralizing and indignation.

 

[gkIrish]

Things often feel obvious but that obviousness doesn't hold up on closer inspection. I wish you'd give it a shot. I think you'll find that it isn't as simple as you are assuming.

You are trying to make the point that the practical effect of deflating the balls is negligible. Because this game was a blowout others might agree with you. I think the fact that they were deflated in and of itself is despicable. And most would agree with me. Wait until you find out that the Patriots do this all the time. Then those 2 and 3 and 4 point victories won't look so good.

 

[Monk]

They're two different issues.

Issue 1: Do I think the Patriots cheated?
No.

Why: Because of the math formula that you don't understand points out that ball deflation is completely plausible without any malfeasance.

I'm just curious as to why you think Mother Nature deflated 11 of the 12 Patriots footballs and not the Colts.

 

[irishfan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>NFL head coaches here at Senior Bowl seem downright offended that people think this deflation stuff is a big deal.</p>— Kevin Clark (@KevinClarkWSJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinClarkWSJ/status/557961198856306688">January 21, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wait, you mean to tell me that everyone does this and it isn't a big deal? Shocker.

 

[Irish#1]

They're two different issues.

Issue 1: Do I think the Patriots cheated?
No.

Why: Because of the math formula that you don't understand points out that ball deflation is completely plausible without any malfeasance.

Issue 2: Do I think this is is a big deal?
No.

Why: Because teams, players, coaches, and Mother Nature have manipulated and modified footballs since Knute Rockne perfected the forward pass.

I didn't say I didn't understand the formula, but as has been pointed out numerous times, if what you are saying is true, then why weren't all of the balls effected?

I was just listening to Rick Venturi during lunch. He coached for a long time in the NFL and was a HC for two years. He said during his time, there were a number of incidents that would be looked at as cheating, but he also said that never in his career did any team he was on deflate footballs.

Given your responses, am I correct in assuming that you will still think the Pats didn't cheat even if the NFL comes down on them?

 

[gkIrish]

You mean that its the intent of the violation that should be judged, right? So, when johnny LT gets badly beat and holds the DE so that his QB won't get flattened, that is unethical because he INTENDED to commit the violation. On the other hand, if johnny is just sitting there, minding his own business, ends up holding the same DE by accident, through no fault of his own and having nothing to do with gaining an advantage, that's just a simple penalty. Do I have that right?



Of course fans of a team are going to tend to side with that team in EXACTLY the same way that people who dislike that team are going to tend to land on the other side. A little introspection can do wonders.

If someone in the Patriots organization knowingly committed this violation, they should be punished accordingly, as should the organization.

I had a long answer typed up but again, frankly, I'm not going to explain to Patriots fans why deflating the balls is a whole different level of cheating than committing a penalty within a game. Is this seriously the justification you are all coming up with? It baffles my mind.

They're two different issues.

Issue 1: Do I think the Patriots cheated?
No.

Why: Because of the math formula that you don't understand points out that ball deflation is completely plausible without any malfeasance.

If you are going to keep ignoring the fact that the Colts balls were also checked and did not succumb to your physics equations I will straight up ban you. I'm not even kidding. Your level of trollish ignorance of logic for someone that graduated from Notre Dame is riling me up so much that I will risk being banned myself to stop this nonsense.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm just curious as to why you think Mother Nature deflated 11 of the 12 Patriots footballs and not the Colts.

I still haven't seen a credible source that says the Colts balls were, in fact, tested and if so, WHEN. It sounds like if they were tested it was at a later date and likely indoors. A ball that shrinks due to cold will re-inflate if returned to the original temperature at which it was inflated.

Pre-game: All balls properly inflated

During and immediately post-game: All balls under inflated due to cold <--- Patriots balls tested

Long post-game: Balls returned to indoors and return to proper inflation <--- Colts balls tested(?)

 

[SoDakDomer]

I'm just curious as to why you think Mother Nature deflated 11 of the 12 Patriots footballs and not the Colts.

A possible explanation with no data to back this up. Tom Brady has already stated he likes deflaited footballs. So the Pats submit the balls with the minium amount of PSI possible. And lets just say Andrew Luck likes his balls infliated as much as possible, so the colts send their balls to the refs with the max psi allowed. The cold air drops all the balls the same psi, however because the colts balls started with a higher psi they still remain in the acceptable range. Just one possible explanation, no actual info to back that up.

 

[wizards8507]

If you are going to keep ignoring the fact that the Colts balls were also checked and did not succumb to your physics equations I will straight up ban you. I'm not even kidding. Your level of trollish ignorance of logic for someone that graduated from Notre Dame is riling me up so much that I will risk being banned myself to stop this nonsense.

Provide a credible source that says the Colts balls were tested.

Also this:

A possible explanation with no data to back this up. Tom Brady has already stated he likes deflaited footballs. So the Pats submit the balls with the minium amount of PSI possible. And lets just say Andrew Luck likes his balls infliated as much as possible, so the colts send their balls to the refs with the max psi allowed. The cold air drops all the balls the same psi, however because the colts balls started with a higher psi they still remain in the acceptable range. Just one possible explanation, no actual info to back that up.

There's no guarantee that the Pats balls and the Colts balls were inflated the same amount from the beginning. There's a full 1.0 PSI acceptable range.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You are trying to make the point that the practical effect of deflating the balls is negligible. Because this game was a blowout others might agree with you. I think the fact that they were deflated in and of itself is despicable. And most would agree with me. Wait until you find out that the Patriots do this all the time. Then those 2 and 3 and 4 point victories won't look so good.

I assume this has been SOP for the Patriots for a long time. It's like me driving 75 mph everywhere I go. Experience has taught me that I will rarely ever get caught and getting a ticket every few years is worth me not wasting time going slow. I don't think going 10 over the speed limit is a big deal, I'm not gaining any huge advantage; it's just the way I prefer to drive. Part of the reason I feel justified in doing that is because I think the speed limit is dumb. I get that if I get caught I have to pay, but I'd rather risk paying the fine than comply with a dumb rule. The Patriots should just have to pay the fine associated with the violation and move on.

The one thing I will criticize the Patriots for here is that the optics are so bad. If I had a suspended license or there was a warrant out for me, I probably wouldn't drive 75 because getting caught would be extra bad for me. Getting caught doing something so inconsequential would be meaningless if it were any other team, but because it is the Patriots there is all this weird misplaced outrage. They should have anticipated that.

 

[Irish#1]

This goes a little bit to my point. If you hold, the rulebook calls for a 10 yard penalty. In this case, the rulebook calls for a $25k fine. So why can't they just pay the fine and move on like we do when teams commit penalties? Instead we get all this nauseating moralizing and indignation.

You're comparing apples to oranges. There is a section for play violations and there is one for standards. The rule book for play violations addresses holding, PI, etc. The book for play standards, includes uniforms, field size, height and width of goal post, size and weight of footballs, etc..

 

[gkIrish]

I still haven't seen a credible source that says the Colts balls were, in fact, tested and if so, WHEN. It sounds like if they were tested it was at a later date and likely indoors. A ball that shrinks due to cold will re-inflate if returned to the original temperature at which it was inflated.

Pre-game: All balls properly inflated

During and immediately post-game: All balls under inflated due to cold <--- Patriots balls tested

Long post-game: Balls returned to indoors and return to proper inflation <--- Colts balls tested(?)

Provide a credible source that says the Colts balls were tested.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Gerry Austin, longtime referee, says halftime Pats-Colts footballs brought in, checked at half. Colts footballs still legal. Pats were not.</p>— mike freeman (@mikefreemanNFL) <a href="https://twitter.com/mikefreemanNFL/status/557960947290345472">January 21, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Monk]

A possible explanation with no data to back this up. Tom Brady has already stated he likes deflaited footballs. So the Pats submit the balls with the minium amount of PSI possible. And lets just say Andrew Luck likes his balls infliated as much as possible, so the colts send their balls to the refs with the max psi allowed. The cold air drops all the balls the same psi, however because the colts balls started with a higher psi they still remain in the acceptable range. Just one possible explanation, no actual info to back that up.

This could very well happen, the only issue is the allowable pressure pre game is 12.5 to 13.5 PSI giving the balls 1 PSI to fluctuate. The Patriots balls as reported by ESPN were 2 PSI below the minimum pressure allowable.

 

[irishfan]

I assume this has been SOP for the Patriots for a long time. It's like me driving 75 mph everywhere I go. Experience has taught me that I will rarely ever get caught and getting a ticket every few years is worth me not wasting time going slow. I don't think going 10 over the speed limit is a big deal, I'm not gaining any huge advantage; it's just the way I prefer to drive. Part of the reason I feel justified in doing that is because I think the speed limit is dumb. I get that if I get caught I have to pay, but I'd rather risk paying the fine than comply with a dumb rule. The Patriots should just have to pay the fine associated with the violation and move on.

The one thing I will criticize the Patriots for here is that the optics are so bad. If I had a suspended license or there was a warrant out for me, I probably wouldn't drive 75 because getting caught would be extra bad for me. Getting caught doing something so inconsequential would be meaningless if it were any other team, but because it is the Patriots there is all this weird misplaced outrage. They should have anticipated that.

Somehow this is a perfect analogy.