Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Brady fights on, files lawsuit to stop suspension
The Associated Press
JIMMY GOLEN
Jul 29th 2015 7:23PM

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — Tom Brady took the fight over his "Deflategate" suspension to social media and federal court on Wednesday, and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft backed the three-time Super Bowl MVP, saying "I was wrong to put my faith in the league."

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/29/b ... /21215712/

I have been asked about my opinion on this whole debacle by all my friends who watch sports, and I can never seem to give a clear answer. As a casual observer, it seems that it's a no-brainer that Brady was maliciously involved. But there seem to be so many unanswered questions that seem to have gotten buried in the more recent details. For example:

- The media initially reported that 11 out of 12 footballs were judged by officials to be "significantly" under-inflated. Then a report on February 1st was released saying that only one football was "significantly" underinflated, the rest were just a "few ticks under". That report got almost no air time.

- Two different pressure gauges were used when measuring the air pressure of the footballs, one, with the Wilson branding on it, the other, unmarked. The Wilson pressure gauge measured pressures of 0.3 – 0.45 PSI higher than the other gauge. This issue seemed to get little attention in the Wells report. Walt Anderson, the game's referee later admitted to having no recollection of which gauge he used to measure the balls pre-game, even though they show numerical difference.

- Ryan Grigson, the Colts General Manager reported to the NFL and to his team the entire week leading up the game that the Patriots "regularly violated the rules by deflating their footballs", although no one had heard of this before. He said that they liked to "let some air out of the football after it was properly inflated so Brady could throw it better". Grigson stated that John Harbaugh had told him the week prior to watch out for under-inflated footballs used by New England, but Harbaugh denied this claim.

All this, ant not to mention that some of the scientific arguments made by third parties, got almost no attention.

- The Naughton Lab for Condensed matter Physics at the University of Boston pumped a regulation NFL ball in room temperature to 13.5 psi, then placed it in a 47-degree chamber (about the field temperature during the game) for 2 hours, and observed a loss of 3 PSI.

- Pittsburgh-Based HeadSmart Labs recreated the experiment and filled 12 footballs to 12.5 PSI at room temperature. When stored in a cold room for 2 hours, they noticed a drop 1.07 PSI drop, and when they simulated the game's rainy conditions by soaking the balls with water, the PSI dropped an additional 0.75 PSI.

- Roderick MacKinnon, professor of molecular neurobiology and biophysics of Rockefeller University specifically mentioned that the Wells Report refuses to look at the multitude of tests, and therefore has no credibility upon commenting on the "lack of scientific explanation".

Again, not saying that they did or did not have anything to do with the football pressure, I just think it's strange that these topics have gone either unanswered or largely forgotten.

by Giov4192 » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:12 pm
"I have been asked about my opinion on this whole debacle by all my friends who watch sports, and I can never seem to give a clear answer. As a casual observer, it seems that it's a no-brainer that Brady was maliciously involved. But there seem to be so many unanswered questions that seem to have gotten buried in the more recent details. For example:.."

Your examples are precisely why this seat earlier claimed:
1. the Brady team will pick apart the opposition in appeal; and,
2. the Kraftsman would recant when he realized he was deceived.
(The contention is that Bob Kraft was under the impression that if he did not protest only a mild reprimand "might" be imposed.
The supposition is that other NFL owners / Managers believed the same.)

Now... your examples are certainly extremely valid points of appeal.
You can be assured if you are able to identify and express them, the appeal team will have that and likely more resulting
in a rather bombastic array of ammunition.

There is little awareness here of the "Rules of Evidence" but one would think a transcript of the minutes of the "Hearing"
would show the extent of the presentation of your evidential facts and the attention they were given by the governing body,
if any.

The trial groupies who felt Kraft would pay and Brady would play (the sacrificial lamb) will soon see that watching "Perry Mason"
re-runs is not the answer.

Don't be surprised to see a complete reversal - perhaps even a considerable award to the aggrieved parties - resulting
in unparalleled embarrassment for the goodfella and a harsh review of the no-fun system of crime and punishment.

It might also swing wide the gate of appeal for even the slightest offense and weaken the league as never anticipated -
maybe even a frightening "Sherman" review.

Hopefully, our esteemed prosecutor to the North will be able to chime in here?

Thank you for a thoroughly enlightening and well-defined conjunction of overlooked events and facts.

This whole thing is a real slippery slope for the NFL. The league has made a solid case, but I doubt they'll ever get Tom Brady or the Patriots to admit fault.

Say the Patriots defy the league and start Brady in Week One. What's the NFL's next step then? It's kind of crazy, but one or two more radical actions by either side and suddenly its DEFCON 1 for the league. And over what? Deflated footballs.

The league should've found a compromise months ago.

Andrew McKillop wrote:This whole thing is a real slippery slope for the NFL. The league has made a solid case, but I doubt they'll ever get Tom Brady or the Patriots to admit fault.

Say the Patriots defy the league and start Brady in Week One. What's the NFL's next step then? It's kind of crazy, but one or two more radical actions by either side and suddenly its DEFCON 1 for the league. And over what? Deflated footballs.

The league should've found a compromise months ago.

In the America's Game episodes on the Raiders, the former Raiders (and John Madden) boast of cheating.

Speaking of the Raiders. There was a time when Pete Rozelle indirectly threatened to kick the Raiders out of the league if they went ahead with their move to L.A. I'd hate to see that kind of rhetoric over deflategate.

by Andrew McKillop » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:12 pm
"This whole thing is a real slippery slope for the NFL. The league has made a solid case, but I doubt they'll ever get Tom Brady or the Patriots to admit fault.
Say the Patriots defy the league and start Brady in Week One. What's the NFL's next step then? It's kind of crazy, but one or two more radical actions by either side and suddenly its DEFCON 1 for the league. And over what? Deflated footballs.
The league should've found a compromise months ago."

We must look to Mr Hickok who, in addition to being able to do anything with words, seems to be our most astute member
regarding the "Rules."
(More importantly, the interpretation of the rules...)

But, the thinking here is:
1. The game would begin with a Penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
2. Brady would be told to leave the field under threat of Forfeit.
3. Belichick would be evicted for the same Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

Again, that is not certain but it surely makes sense if the rules are followed to the letter (and they should be.)
(Perhaps even a double penalty?)

Now... the question: Is there an official with the gumption to do that - if, of course, applicable?

---

by Andrew McKillop » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:30 pm
"Speaking of the Raiders. There was a time when Pete Rozelle indirectly threatened to kick the Raiders out of the league if they went ahead with their move to L.A. I'd hate to see that kind of rhetoric over deflategate."

BAH! Hardly! The smart money would say the League would do the kicking and the goodfella would go through the uprights.

I don't have a whole lot of doubt about what happened here. Brady has said publicly in interviews, most recently I believe in 2011 with ESPN, that he likes a ball that is less inflated so that he can get a better grip. That's the extent of his involvement. The low-level equipment guys take it from there.

There are innumerable problems with the Wells report, the process that was followed, and the evidence they chose to reject or accept. Walt Anderson, for example, didn't say he didn't remember which gauge he used, he said which gauge he used. He was pressed on that point, and said he wasn't 100% certain, or something to that effect. His answer wasn't the one that the NFL needed to support their theory, and to support the expert's conclusion cited by Wells, so his answer was rejected.

We've been through this all thoroughly in another thread, and I don't want to go through all that again.

That said, I just don't get what the big deal is here. To me, this is whole issue is a little more serious than the rules dictating what colour socks players wear, and is about as serious as the rules requiring things like jerseys being tucked in on the field. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any competitive advantage is gained by having a ball deflated slighted below the (completely arbitrarily chosed) 12.5 psi limit. All evidence is to the contrary. Aside from the obvious - two touchdowns with deflated balls, four touchdowns with inflated balls - the experts who were asked in the weeks leading up to the hearing said that a deflated ball doesn't get the same zip as a properly inflated ball, and is more likely to be intercepted. (And of course in the game itself, one interception with a deflated ball, none with inflated balls.) The referees, when asked, said that after examining the balls, there was no difference between them in terms of feel. You needed the gauge to tell the difference between them.

A couple of weeks earlier, in the Jets game, the balls got up to 16 psi. If the sanctity of the ball inflation is such a big deal, then where was the outrage over that? Where was the investigation over that? The whole thing is a complete mystery to me.

This latest business about the cell phone is a complete shock. It just makes the whole thing look like a witch hunt. They're going on and on about this, but at the end of the day they never actually asked for his cell phone.

In terms of the court case, I don't think they are going to get very far challenging the process, because while not as fair as one would like to see, they agreed to it in their CBA. But there does seem to be a great deal of merit in the argument that the penalty imposed on Brady exceeds the some implied boundaries in the CBA, given that it's so over the top relative to penalties imposed for the same thing in the past, like Favre's $50,000 fine in 2010.

What I'll be interested to see is any discussion about the obligations on employees to "co-operate" when that co-operation would appear to constitute a violation of the employees basic privacy rights in the absence of an express provision allowing it. Things like collecting urine samples to submit for drug testing, for example, are specifically set out, and agreed to by the union. But I don't think that there's anything anywhere that says a player has to turn over his cell phones for examination, particularly where the phone itself isn't the centre of the investigation, as it was in Favre's case.

oldecapecod11 wrote: (More importantly, the interpretation of the rules...)

But, the thinking here is:
1. The game would begin with a Penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
2. Brady would be told to leave the field under threat of Forfeit.
3. Belichick would be evicted for the same Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

Again, that is not certain but it surely makes sense if the rules are followed to the letter (and they should be.)
(Perhaps even a double penalty?)

It would be an unsportsmanlike conduct foul for an inactive player entering the game and he would be forced to leave the playing enclosure. If he does not, it would become a security matter, because it would be interference by a nonplayer. The officials are never to use the word "forfeit," and they do not have the authority to declare one. There is no provision for the coach to be penalized for a player's actions, no matter how much it seems to be a defiant maneuver on his part.

1st and 25 after the penalty is assessed.

However, even if this was attempted to be perpetrated, I think it is impossible for it to get to the field. I believe that suspended players must cease activity with the team, which means that Brady does not have a working credential to enter the stadium. He would be turned back by NFL Security long before anything.

by 65 toss power trap » Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:48 am
--
oldecapecod11 wrote:
(More importantly, the interpretation of the rules...)
But, the thinking here is:
1. The game would begin with a Penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
2. Brady would be told to leave the field under threat of Forfeit.
3. Belichick would be evicted for the same Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Again, that is not certain but it surely makes sense if the rules are followed to the letter (and they should be.)
(Perhaps even a double penalty?)
--
It would be an unsportsmanlike conduct foul for an inactive player entering the game and he would be forced to leave the playing enclosure. If he does not, it would become a security matter, because it would be interference by a nonplayer. The officials are never to use the word "forfeit," and they do not have the authority to declare one. There is no provision for the coach to be penalized for a player's actions, no matter how much it seems to be a defiant maneuver on his part.

1st and 25 after the penalty is assessed.

However, even if this was attempted to be perpetrated, I think it is impossible for it to get to the field. I believe that suspended players must cease activity with the team, which means that Brady does not have a working credential to enter the stadium. He would be turned back by NFL Security long before anything.


Interesting... but obviously not documented.

We agree concerning the foul but you seem to be saying no penalty would be assessed until the inactive player entered the game
(or attempted to enter the game.) Yet, later you say that a suspended (inactive) player would not get to the field.
If he was on the field, dressed to play, is that not a foul?
His not getting to the field is questionable at best - especially if it took place at a home game. You are not going to see a couple
of square badges drag a kicking and screaming superstar away from an entrance or from the field. And certainly no local cop
assigned for the day from a Wrentham or an Attleboro is going to participate except to (maybe) ask the player to leave or help
suppress the rage of fans now getting out of control.

Is there a specific section of the officials manuals or casebooks where it states they cannot use the word "forfeit."
C'mon! That alone is a violation - and not of any football rule book.
At some point, the referee has to do something. What?

Let's take a worst case scenario.
The player is not going to leave.
The square badges have to back off because his teammates are going to help him and the crowd is getting more than restless.
The cameras are rolling and every feed in America is cutting to Foxborough.
What does the referee do? "You know I can't use the "f" word, Coach, so please, pretty please, help me here."
The coach turns on his heel.

We are not going to see any of this but it does present issues for discussion that want to be avoided.

They took the case out of the wilds and brought it to the City where the decisions are made that determine our lives.
Thankfully, the brethren of Alan Page will not see this matter, which, I think, would have created an additional media frenzy.

Meanwhile, should the four games be so foolishly enforced, here's one for the make-believers who like "what ifs."

The Patriots go 12 and 4, losing only those 4 games, and go on to win the Sooper Bowl.
Boston screams for 100 years that they were cheated out of an undefeated season.
Don Shula giggles.