Quote:Why indeed?


<a class="bbc_url" href='https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf'>https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf</a>

My reading of the Wells report above, as opposed to just taking the "more probably than not" opinion as definitive is that:


1. The pressures measured at halftime were within the expectation of un-deflated balls according to Boyle's law. This is contingent on Anderson using the gauge he remembered using. If he used the other gauge before the game, the one that measured 0.3-0.4 psi lower, then it was likely that air was released after the pre-game measurements.

2. Brady and the two equipment guys made some suspicious comments.

3. Brady refused the request to turn over phone messages.

4. McNally stopped in the restroom on his way to the field while in possession of the balls.


As far as point 4 is concerned, while suspicious it's immaterial if the pressures checked out OK. However, there was an uncertainty in that regard.


It was also clear that the refs did nothing at the start of the game to ensure that the clots were not playing at a disadvantage, this in spite of prior warning, along with a time period when the balls went missing, something that was unprecedented according to Walt Anderson. If Anderson's memory of which gauge he used is correct then the clots were not at a disadvantage after all, but the refs couldn't have known this at the start of the game. To be clear here, I don't think that there is an advantage from playing with balls that are lower than spec, but that's not the position of the NFL. The refs need to act as if the NFL is correct.*


As far as point 1 above, the NFL did nothing to establish a scientific baseline as to what halftime pressures should be expected. A simple test would have been to inflate several spare balls at halftime, let them sit out the same way the game balls did, and then measure them after the game to see how much the pressures changed. A similar test could still have been done before the report was finalized, why didn't the Wells report include it?


*To elaborate further, I think the failure to act before the start of the game by the refs is less of a problem than (say) the refereeing in the Steelers/Seahawks SB. But I don't see how the NFL can take that position.