Inflating the ball above regulation prior to inspection - is this cheating

Vanolder

[Rodgers] admitted in an interiew last night that he likes to add extra air to balls before games -It suits him as he has large hands and can still get a solid grip on the ball.

That's an outrageous admission to make.

Suely a ban of some sort is heading his way? - More air in the football?!

BoJack Horseman

If its the "Tuesday with Aaron" on ESPN Wisconsin you are referring to, I think you may have read it wrong.

He said he likes the balls at the upper end of the permitted PSI range as it suits his grip pressure better.
He's annoyed when referees subsequently let a little bit of air out .

GB don't over-inflate beyond permitted levels.

Also, I thought there was a boards.ie rule against blaspheming against God?

eagle eye

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If its the "Tuesday with Aaron" on ESPN Wisconsin you are referring to, I think you may have read it wrong.

He said he likes the balls at the upper end of the permitted PSI range as it suits his grip pressure better.
He's annoyed when referees subsequently let a little bit of air out .

GB don't over-inflate beyond permitted levels.

Also, I thought there was a boards.ie rule against blaspheming against God?

This thread is about Aaron Rodgers not Tom Brady who is the GOAT and GOD of the NFL!

I am a Packers fan, and I would say that if Rodgers deflated balls by 2 pounds taking them out of the permitted specs, much like the allegation against the Pats, then he is into cheating territory alright. He certainly could not object too much to the allegation of being a cheat.

Is that really what is alleged against him? Or is someone taking the allegations against the Pats and shoehorning an example that is not really similar into the same category to make it seem more acceptable?

Hazys

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If its the "Tuesday with Aaron" on ESPN Wisconsin you are referring to, I think you may have read it wrong.

He said he likes the balls at the upper end of the permitted PSI range as it suits his grip pressure better.
He's annoyed when referees subsequently let a little bit of air out .

GB don't over-inflate beyond permitted levels.

Also, I thought there was a boards.ie rule against blaspheming against God?

The OP I presume is talking about this:

With all the talk about deflated footballs, an exchange on the CBS broadcast of the New England Patriots' road game against the Green Bay Packers on Nov. 30 seems timely to pass along. Early in the third quarter, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms had the following discussion on the broadcast:

Nantz: We talked to [Aaron] Rodgers about 'How do you like your footballs?' Because, you know, you can rub them up before the game. [Phil], you really kind of created that for everybody else in the league.

Simms: I don’t know if I did, because the quarterbacks got tired of them complaining. But he said something [that] was unique: 'I like to push the limit to how much air we can put in the football, even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it.' Because he thinks it’s easier for him to grip. He likes them tight. Of course, he’s got very big hands and you can tell that by watching him play.

Nantz: You’ve never heard of a guy really desiring a football to be fat and overinflated before, have you?

Simms: Everybody wants it smaller and soft, so they can dig their fingers into. He’s such a feel thrower. You can tell. The one touchdown he threw down the field to the tight end is such feel; then he flicks it. That shows you he just has great control of it, with his fingers and hand.

Nantz: He said, 'God gave me big hands and a strong grip.'

Simms: You know, the officials do check those footballs and sometimes maybe even get lucky and put an extra half pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.

From this, its clear that Aaron Rodgers would over inflate the balls before inspection (maybe even after inspection), in hope that the refs would miss them and he would to get to play with illegal balls.

Vanolder

I would also like to add the Panters to the list of cheaters for heating balls against the Vikings back in November. Thank you.

TO.

As per the rules 12.5 to 13.5 is where the ball needs to be. Those balls at full capacity could squeeze 15 to 16. If Rodgers is doing that then technically yes he is breaking the rules.

The key point here is that he said refs would let air out. Seems like the refs he is referring to did their jobs.

Hazys

TO. wrote: »

As per the rules 12.5 to 13.5 is where the ball needs to be. Those balls at full capacity could squeeze 15 to 16. If Rodgers is doing that then technically yes he is breaking the rules.

The key point here is that he said refs would let air out. Seems like the refs he is referring to did their jobs.

I gather from that was he was over inflating them in hopes that the refs would miss them from time to time. This part of the quote "even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it." says to me that some balls were getting through and he got to play with illegal balls. Why else would he be purposely over inflating them before inspection?

Could we lock this thread?

Maybe tone down the topic title.

I appreciate it predates the new rules on not saying anything bad about anyone or any organisation, but it seems a bit provocative.

Neil3030

The thread will stay open, as the discourse is civil, evidence was provided for the opening claim, and so far there is no ad hominem or abuse.

However I agree that the title is a bit incendiary and will be changed.

In Exile

I like the new title.

I don't think inflating the ball over or under to inspection can be considered cheating.

It is the referees job to inspect all match balls provided by the teams, make sure they are in line with regulations and adjust if necessary. If the refs miss the fact the balls are over inflated, it is not cheating, the referee hasn't done his job properly.

However, if Rodgers then turned around and pumped them up again, then yes he would have cheated. The fact he was happy to admit what he does, shows that he knows he isn't doing anything wrong. Maybe it is bending the rules, knowing there is a chance it can be missed, but it's not cheating.

Hazys

In Exile wrote: »

I like the new title.

I don't think inflating the ball over or under to inspection can be considered cheating.

It is the referees job to inspect all match balls provided by the teams, make sure they are in line with regulations and adjust if necessary. If the refs miss the fact the balls are over inflated, it is not cheating, the referee hasn't done his job properly.

However, if Rodgers then turned around and pumped them up again, then yes he would have cheated. The fact he was happy to admit what he does, shows that he knows he isn't doing anything wrong. Maybe it is bending the rules, knowing there is a chance it can be missed, but it's not cheating.

Its funny the rule is so ambiguous you could argue it either way. The rule doesn't say whether it is ok or not to hand the balls to the refs in an inappropriate state. It just says the ball can't be in an inappropriate state but not when. I think the when is irrelevant in Rodger's case as his intent is to play with balls in an inappropriate state.

The NFL rule is so lax and how it is enforced is so lax, not to mention the fact that Aaron Rodgers was willing to speak so openly about trying to navigate around the rules would suggest how widespread the issue is, it seems crazy that such a minor issue is being taken so seriously.

But I think the real question of the thread should be: if you are purposely over inflating the balls and hoping that the refs miss them, is that cheating? Like sneaking drugs past airport security and hoping the cops don't stop you, are you breaking the law?

In Exile

Hazys wrote: »

Its funny the rule is so ambiguous you could argue it either way. The rule doesn't say whether it is ok or not to hand the balls to the refs in an inappropriate state. It just says the ball can't be in an inappropriate state but not when. I think the when is irrelevant in Rodger's case as his intent is to play with balls in an inappropriate state.

The NFL rule is so lax and how it is enforced is so lax, not to mention the fact that Aaron Rodgers was willing to speak so openly about trying to navigate around the rules would suggest how widespread the issue is, it seems crazy that such a minor issue is being taken so seriously.

But I think the real question of the thread should be: if you are purposely over inflating the balls and hoping that the refs miss them, is that cheating? Like sneaking drugs past airport security and hoping the cops don't stop you, are you breaking the law?

It really is. And it is easy to argue for or against in this case.

I think the drugs comparison is a bit off though!

But I understand what you mean. It'd be the same thing when rugby players wear longer studs. Refs check them before the game, but if they get away with it, is it still cheating?

Unfortunately these things are, like you said, such a grey area.

If Ireland lose in the 6N because some opposing front row was wearing long studs, everyone would be up in arms about it. However if it's the other way around, we'd say it was the refs fault that it was missed and therefore not our problem

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

The thread will stay open, as the discourse is civil, evidence was provided for the opening claim, and so far there is no ad hominem or abuse.

You are quite wrong there, if you are implying that the evidence has merit.

The evidence is, very obviously, hearsay at best.

It is utterly useless, and outrageous to keep insinuating that Rodgers is a cheat on the basis of one comment by a third party who possibly did not even think that the comment would be analysed. He was hardly under oath.

poldebruin

Simple answer... No. And that goes for the patriots case too.

Pity this thread has got the air it has when it's obvious the reason it was started.

Vanolder

poldebruin wrote: »

Simple answer... No. And that goes for the patriots case too.

Pity this thread has got the air it has when it's obvious the reason it was started.

It was started with tongue firmly in cheek, mate.