Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

    Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
    Bill Nye refuted this Patriots crap on Good Morning America.
    And the mental gymnastic routine of Pats fans has now moved to "Well, aren't there scientists who think he's full of it?"

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      I seriously can't believe this is so big. I mean, Good Morning America? I've seen it on all the 24 hours news networks. It really does blow my mind.
      Which makes me wonder about a few things.

      What if this is partly being fed into a frenzy by the NFL.

      Instead of talking about Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson etc we're talking about an football scandal that actually deals with a football. Add that its a dead week before SB and make it into a media frenzy the NFL benefits greatly from this because now they got people who don't really care about football talking about this wanting to tune in to the game. They will be able to get even more record breaking ratings and charge even higher ad rates than they already do for the Super Bowl.

      By the time the SB is over this will all end up fading away.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Nobody is gonna remember the Colts losing 45-7.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
          Bill Nye refuted this Patriots crap on Good Morning America.
          Some may choose not to believe me because of my fandom and since on the internet you can claim to be almost anything, but I have 4 advanced degrees in chemistry (BA, MS, MPhil, and PhD). I would like to explain, please.


          Bill Nye disagrees with only one of what are the three proposed contributing factors. Namely, that rubbing a football can raise the pressure by as much as 1 psi through friction/heat, meaning then that when it cools that there will be a 1 psi drop.


          A second factor, and not in dispute, is that a drop in temperature will cause a drop in pressure. This can be modeled by the ideal gas law. Depending on your assumptions about inflating temps, halftime temps, and atmospheric pressure at the time, the ideal gas law models a pressure drop in the range of 0.8 to 1.4 psi.


          A third factor, often wrongly ignored but also not dispute, is that the pouring rain has an effect on the football, in that leather expands when it gets wet. This increases the volume of the football as it changes from dry (pregame) to water-soaked. An increase in volume without adding air results in a pressure drop. How much? That is harder to model except by experiment.
          .
          One well-done experiment shown earlier shows the sum of factors 2 & 3 add up to about a 1.8 psi pressure drop.


          There were leaked reports that the Patriots footballs dropped about 2 psi. PFT today says that one football dropped 2 psi and the others dropped closer to 1 psi.


          Whatever proves to be true, even if you think the rubdown effect is bogus (as Bill Nye does), the other two factors themselves explain most, if not all, of the alleged psi drop.


          I have been asked "Why has psi drop never been as issue before, when we have been playing football forever". The answer is that there are many other factors that affect the feel of the football.
          When you cool a football, psi drops but it gets HARDER because the elasticity of the leather drops with the temperature drop, actually OVERCOMPENSATING for the psi drop. Typical cold football game we hear : "wow, Troy, catching a ball out there today is like catching a ROCK". THIS is why it has never been an issue before: Footballs do not, in fact, turn into MUSH when it gets cold. This is why it became an issue this time: the focus was ENTIRELY upon one parameter alone, which was internal pressure. I hope that this is clear! I think anyone can understand this to be true.


          I have been asked why the same balls, re-inflated, were used in the second half with little or no drop in the PSI. Well, at halftime the balls were at 50 degrees and wet. If you then take them in for 5 min and add a little air, leather conducts heat poorly. This makes them stay pretty cold. You add a little warm air, but overall the air inside the football rises to maybe 55 degrees, inflated, and still wet. In the second half, they cool only from maybe 55 to 50, and stay wet. So in the first half they cooled 25 degrees, got wet, wet leather expands, psi drops even more. Second half no big temp drop, wet leather STAYS wet, no expansion. You would EXPECT a psi drop in the first half and little to none in the second half.

          Why didn't the Colts balls drop in psi? Until we have actual data from the NF L (not leaked guesses) about how much they were inflated to, how far they fell, etc., it is impossible to know. I gave one explanation, but OF COURSE it required many assumptions, since we have no data from the NFL whatsoever.


          Thanks for listening, if you did.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            I think it hangs on and keeps getting attention for several reasons:
            For one thing, it's the game that decided the AFC SB participant. The SB is yet to be played so it has forward momentum.

            For another, America saw the Colts go to Denver and easily handle one of the media's NFL darling teams in the Broncos so the dismantling by the Pats probably surprised the casual fan (or media at large).

            Another thing, the type of cheating alleged and the weather conditions meshed perfectly to give an advantage that most people can easily understand. Having an easier to grip and catch football is nice on a rain soaked day.

            And it doesn't hurt that it's the Pats, a team that has been both popular and successful, yet not immune to these kind of controversies in the past.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I think it hangs on and keeps getting attention for several reasons:
              For one thing, it's the game that decided the AFC SB participant. The SB is yet to be played so it has forward momentum.

              For another, America saw the Colts go to Denver and easily handle one of the media's NFL darling teams in the Broncos so the dismantling by the Pats probably surprised the casual fan (or media at large).

              Another thing, the type of cheating alleged and the weather conditions meshed perfectly to give an advantage that most people can easily understand. Having an easier to grip and catch football is nice on a rain soaked day.

              And it doesn't hurt that it's the Pats, a team that has been both popular and successful, yet not immune to these kind of controversies in the past.


              Dismantling by the Pats surprised the casual fan? I don't think so. Most people figured New England was a lock in the SB when they knew the Colts were going to play them after all none of the games the Colts have played vs the Pats with Luck as QB have been close that wasn't going to change.

              The only reason people are talking about something other than the Colts getting beat like they stole something from the Pats yet again is because of someone leaking "DeflateGate" to Kravitz.

              Had that not happened the media would be talking about how Belichick and Brady could be the greatest ever if they win SB 49.
              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 01-25-2015, 07:13 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Some may choose not to believe me because of my fandom and since on the internet you can claim to be almost anything, but I have 4 advanced degrees in chemistry (BA, MS, MPhil, and PhD). I would like to explain, please.


                Bill Nye disagrees with only one of what are the three proposed contributing factors. Namely, that rubbing a football can raise the pressure by as much as 1 psi through friction/heat, meaning then that when it cools that there will be a 1 psi drop.


                A second factor, and not in dispute, is that a drop in temperature will cause a drop in pressure. This can be modeled by the ideal gas law. Depending on your assumptions about inflating temps, halftime temps, and atmospheric pressure at the time, the ideal gas law models a pressure drop in the range of 0.8 to 1.4 psi.


                A third factor, often wrongly ignored but also not dispute, is that the pouring rain has an effect on the football, in that leather expands when it gets wet. This increases the volume of the football as it changes from dry (pregame) to water-soaked. An increase in volume without adding air results in a pressure drop. How much? That is harder to model except by experiment.
                .
                One well-done experiment shown earlier shows the sum of factors 2 & 3 add up to about a 1.8 psi pressure drop.


                There were leaked reports that the Patriots footballs dropped about 2 psi. PFT today says that one football dropped 2 psi and the others dropped closer to 1 psi.


                Whatever proves to be true, even if you think the rubdown effect is bogus (as Bill Nye does), the other two factors themselves explain most, if not all, of the alleged psi drop.


                I have been asked "Why has psi drop never been as issue before, when we have been playing football forever". The answer is that there are many other factors that affect the feel of the football.
                When you cool a football, psi drops but it gets HARDER because the elasticity of the leather drops with the temperature drop, actually OVERCOMPENSATING for the psi drop. Typical cold football game we hear : "wow, Troy, catching a ball out there today is like catching a ROCK". THIS is why it has never been an issue before: Footballs do not, in fact, turn into MUSH when it gets cold. This is why it became an issue this time: the focus was ENTIRELY upon one parameter alone, which was internal pressure. I hope that this is clear! I think anyone can understand this to be true.


                I have been asked why the same balls, re-inflated, were used in the second half with little or no drop in the PSI. Well, at halftime the balls were at 50 degrees and wet. If you then take them in for 5 min and add a little air, leather conducts heat poorly. This makes them stay pretty cold. You add a little warm air, but overall the air inside the football rises to maybe 55 degrees, inflated, and still wet. In the second half, they cool only from maybe 55 to 50, and stay wet. So in the first half they cooled 25 degrees, got wet, wet leather expands, psi drops even more. Second half no big temp drop, wet leather STAYS wet, no expansion. You would EXPECT a psi drop in the first half and little to none in the second half.

                Why didn't the Colts balls drop in psi? Until we have actual data from the NF L (not leaked guesses) about how much they were inflated to, how far they fell, etc., it is impossible to know. I gave one explanation, but OF COURSE it required many assumptions, since we have no data from the NFL whatsoever.


                Thanks for listening, if you did.
                As a trained scientist you have to appreciate that all of the assumptions and suppositions are presented with zero controls. The simplest control for this particular situation is what the colts footballs registered before the refs examination etc. For this reason I am not convinced by Nye's arguments any more than those who support the Pats position. We need to know alot more about what these teams actually did to the balls in terms of psi, rubbing, temp. of the room where the balls were treated, humidity, heat treatments, etc. The pats and colts need to come clean so that intent can be ascertained as well.

                It is curious to me that the extremes of temperature typically occuring in Dec. and Jan. would no doubt make all balls illegal but yet for some reason this has not been an issue.
                Last edited by speakout4; 01-25-2015, 08:08 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  I read your entire post Slick Pinkham. I'm not sure what I believe, or even I know what to believe, but I appreciate you taking the time to type all that out.

                  My biggest concern if the NFL can prove somebody actually altered the balls. If there's no proof of that, the NFL probably has their hands tied on what punishment they can hand out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    Dismantling by the Pats surprised the casual fan? I don't think so. Most people figured New England was a lock in the SB when they knew the Colts were going to play them after all none of the games the Colts have played vs the Pats with Luck as QB have been close that wasn't going to change.

                    There's a difference in losing and being 'dismantled'. Just because the casual fan thought the Colts were underdogs didn't mean they expected them to lose in a blowout. Especially after seeing them play Denver and look so good.

                    Hard core fans might realize things like matchups, strategy, and past history but I think it's a stretch to think people that might've seen the Colts or Pats a couple of times all season prior to the playoffs, if that, expected anything more than a real game between two 'final four' contestants.


                    The only reason people are talking about something other than the Colts getting beat like they stole something from the Pats yet again is because of someone leaking "DeflateGate" to Kravitz.

                    Had that not happened the media would be talking about how Belichick and Brady could be the greatest ever if they win SB 49.
                    Kravitz might've broken the story but I seriously doubt a story of this magnitude would've been swept under the rug. So if not Kravitz, surely an NFL reporter with inside contacts would've broken it within a few hours anyway.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post


                      Thanks for listening, if you did.
                      You know what I'd like to know...
                      Has there ever been testing of ball inflation during a game and after or is it all done at the pregame inspection and therefore a giant mystery (or assumption) what the halftime and final gametime PSI must be? (Note: Not to find a rules violation but simply to understand what to be expected and normal).
                      Following up on that, has there ever been testing to look at simulated game and weather conditions to note the PSI changes with a ball just to know what should be expected and acceptable under real world conditions?
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...225753393.html

                        Sherman's exactly right. Normally don't care for Seattle's big mouths but if they are smack talking the Pats I won't mind.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post

                          It is curious to me that the extremes of temperature typically occuring in Dec. and Jan. would no doubt make all balls illegal but yet for some reason this has not been an issue.
                          Because even in the ice bowl game, where the football internal pressure was likely well below 10 psi when out on the field, the ball did NOT feel soft. In fact, it felt HARD because the leather at those temps is about as stiff as a board. The balls pumped up and tested INSIDE before the game were legal and certified to play, even in the ice bowl. They are never tested again, so whether they are "illegal" or not when out in the cold is just semantics. They had been approved AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. There are no standards /rules / target values for the pressure of cold footballs.

                          So a pressure drop associated with a temperature drop has no effect on a QB's ability to be able to squeeze the football. Thus this has never been an issue and never will be an issue whatsoever. It is an ARTIFICIAL issue to people who are concerned only about the internal pressure of the ball at the temperature at which the game is played. That is never measured, because it is unimportant to the performance of the football.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-25-2015, 09:10 PM.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Has there ever been testing of ball inflation during a game and after
                            No

                            has there ever been testing to look at simulated game and weather conditions to note the PSI changes with a ball just to know what should be expected and acceptable under real world conditions?
                            Not to my knowledge, but remember, a football at -20 degrees and 8 psi when at that temperature is probably harder and less compressible than a football at 80 degrees and 13 psi when at that temperature. Low pressure does not make a ball unplayable if it is cold. So the ball would never be "unacceptable" to use because of weather.
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-25-2015, 09:07 PM.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              Because even in the ice bowl game, where the football internal pressure was likely well below 10 psi when out on the field, the ball did NOT feel soft. In fact, it felt HARD because the leather at those temps is about as stiff as a board. The balls pumped up and tested INSIDE before the game were legal and certified to play, even in the ice bowl. They are never tested again, so whether they are "illegal" or not when out in the cold is just semantics. They had been approved AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. There are no standards /rules / target values for the pressure of cold footballs.

                              So a pressure drop associated with a temperature drop has no effect on a QBs ability to be able to squeeze the football. Thus this has never been an issue and never will be an issue whatsoever. It is an ARTIFICIAL issue to people who are concerned only about the internal pressure of the ball at the temperature at which the game is played. That is never measured, because it is unimportant.
                              That is your opinion and apparently not shared by all. Very likely the rules committee will require testing the balls at half time to make certain that they remain legal throughout the game.
                              Last edited by speakout4; 01-25-2015, 09:16 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                How so?

                                It is easier for most QB's to throw a football that is 12 psi than a football at 14 psi (both at room temp) because the 1st ball is softer. The softness/compressibility affects grip strength, making it easier to throw.

                                Thus people think psi is everything. But actually softness/compressibility is everything, and psi is only one factor in it when you are considering all possible temperatures and not just room temperature.

                                the balls pumped up and tested INSIDE before the game were legal and certified to play, even in the ice bowl.

                                true, or else the balls would not have been approved




                                They are never tested again, so whether they are "illegal" or not when out in the cold is just semantics.

                                True. Footballs are tested at room temp about 2 hrs before gametime. If a ball passes, it is considered legal to play with. It is never tested again, so why would it be branded "illegal"?




                                They had been approved AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

                                that is how pregame testing is done


                                There are no standards /rules / target values for me testing pressure of cold footballs.

                                Balls must be 12.5-13.5 psi when tested. They are only tested before the game, when hey are at room temp.




                                ----


                                I don't understand how any of those statements that you bolded constitute an "opinion". They are accurate, factual descriptions of the testing procedure and the psi rule.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-25-2015, 09:37 PM.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X