On May 14th, the New England Patriots courtesy of their legal counsel published their own retort to the official Ted Wells Report which can be found here: Wells Report in Context.
While the media, including Deadspin are already reflecting on the rather laughable excuse that ‘The Deflator’ comment was used in connection with McNally trying to lose weight, there are a lot of worthwhile accusations and questions directed back at the NFL and the report itself in particular. That excuse deserves to be mocked but it may also lead to seeing the trees for the forest in this case.
One of the constant refrains in this context report is the actual scientific aspects of the study but let’s delve a little deeper into what the context report takes issue with. The most notable is the reliance on the gauges used and the subsequent results for both teams, while Wells focuses more on the larger drop in the Patriots’ psi in comparison to the gauge used for the Colts balls.
… Additional measurements using the same two gauges were made post-game. Post-game, each of the four Patriots footballs measured were well above the required level of 12.5 psi on both gauges (including one that had been overinflated to 13.65 on the Logo gauge). Three of the four Colts footballs measured below 12.5 psi on the non-Logo gauge (a violation of League rules), one measured below 12.5 psi on both gauges (also a violation), and three Colts footballs measured above 12.5 on the Logo gauge.
Worth remembering is that the Colts footballs were deemed suitable for play at halftime and not re-inflated by the referees whereas the Patriots footballs were. Despite the results being beneath the ideal psi, the Indianapolis Colts have not been penalized at all despite having 1 ball measure below on both gauges and representing a potential unfair competitive advantage.
… MR. ANDERSON SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT HE USED THE LOGO GAUGE FOR THESE PRE-GAME MEASUREMENTS (pg. 52). … The investigators did rely on those Logo gauge halftime psi numbers in dealing with the Colts footballs. Using that gauge, all the Colts footballs were within regulation. That justified the officials not adding air to them. However, when assessing the Patriots footballs, the investigators reject Anderson’s best recollection that he used the Logo gauge pre-game, and instead look to the larger psi drop that is shown by the lower psi, non-Logo gauge.
It’s worth noting that Wells relied on the Logo gauge as the standard, mostly because head referee Walt Anderson utilized it before the game (to the best of his recollection). Yet the Wells Report largely relied on the non-Logo gauge and its results on the Patriots footballs as the proof that the resultant psi was in connection to cheating courtesy of McNally’s deflating the footballs.
… With the Logo gauge, 8 of the 11 Patriots footballs are in the Ideal Gas Law range and the average of all 11 Patriots footballs was 11.49 — fully consistent with the Ideal Gas Law’s prediction of exactly what that psi would be. THAT IS, RELYING ON MR. ANDERSON’S BEST RECOLLECTIONS, BASIC SCIENCE FULLY EXPLAINS THE DROP IN PSI OF THE PATRIOTS FOOTBALLS DURING THE FIRST HALF.
This is one of the more damning pieces against the Wells Report and its conclusions. The science of the Ideal Gas Law explains the results of the footballs measured, especially in light of the physical handling, consistent rainfall, and dropping temperatures. Despite this being a reasonable if not actual explanation behind the deflation of the footballs, the Wells Report instead prefers to rely on text messages and a 1 Minute, 40 Second bathroom break as proof that the footballs were deflated by McNally himself.
… Using Ideal Gas Law calculations, footballs set pre-game in 71º indoor temperatures at the high end of the Rule 2 range — 13.5 psi — will drop below 12.5 when the outside temperature is at or below 52º. It is safe to assume that countless NFL games have therefore used below-regulation footballs — and no one has even noticed. The League is, however, “generally aware” of the impact of heat and cold on the psi of footballs, having adopted a protocol which prevents footballs from being placed in front of field-level heaters. There was a violation of this protocol that arose during the Carolina game in Minnesota during the 2014 season, when NFL officials told ball boys for both teams not to continue to put footballs in front of heaters — an evident attempt to tamper with the footballs in violation of the rules. That led to only a warning to the teams.
Ignoring the general needling of the phrase generally aware, this is worth noting simply because neither team was fined a million dollars, had two draft picks taken away, and had its star player under scrutiny. Despite the ball boys handling the footballs and inflating them while they were in use, both teams only had a warning levied upon them.
… There is no indication in the report of the size, agility or age of those who raced to complete the task as quickly as possible — and hence no real assessment of whether a person of Mr. McNally’s age and physical characteristics could have accomplished this task, which would involve taking the footballs out of the bag, putting them on the floor (which happens to be sloped, increasing the level of difficulty if footballs were laid out on the floor), carefully controlling them to be sure not to deflate any football twice, returning them to the bag, unlocking the door and leaving. In all events, there was good reason for Mr. McNally to stop in the bathroom, since his sideline duties require he be on the field the entire first half.
Again, the methodology of the actual study and experiment is taken to task here in terms of repeating the exact scenario as close to the initial incident as possible.
… Once the game starts, neither team is allowed to gauge the footballs, pump them, or the like. That is solely the province of the referee, who is to be the “sole judge” of whether footballs comply. The Colts, with advance concerns about psi, did not take the issue to the referee. They took the matter into their own hands and had an intern gauge the football. (pg. 63) This conduct was in violation of Rule 2. Nowhere does the Report identify this conduct as a violation of the Rule.
Another violation, this from the Indianapolis Colts during the same exact game, and no punishment has been levied upon them for this.
… During the course of play — where the Patriots had far more offensive plays than did the Colts, the Patriots footballs were subject to far more use, more crushing multiple times under hundreds of pounds of player weight, more exposure to the rain, etc. Also, the consultants did not use any footballs in their simulations that were subjected to the type of actual football game preparation as the balls at issue — the Patriots personnel were never asked to replicate that process, the Patriots facilities were never used in the simulation, and actual game play usage was not replicated. The well-worn footballs used in the simulations had already been subjected to vigorous game day play and were no longer in the same condition as the footballs used in the first half of the AFC Championship Game. Where fractions of psi are critical to an analysis, greater precision should be expected.
This is another damning fact against the scientific studies done by the Exponent group for the Wells Report. Again, it calls into question the methodology and accuracy of the actual studies.
Final Thoughts: While some of the Wells Report Context is pretty dumb in its own right, it does raise questions and levels accusations that are important to consider in relation to the actual Wells Report and its experiments conducted and the results of its findings. It also raises some questions about why teams that were found in violation of similar ball tampering did not receive similar penalties upon their organizations.
Credit to CBC.ca for feature image.
David Hunter
