Talk:Deflategate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggested deletion

Errrrrm... so who fucking suggested this under the deletion policy? At one point today (1/22/15) this was the top story on Google News (in the United States, obviously, and not one of the so-called "countries" that are not the United States), ahead of "government of Yemen overfuckingthrown." Johnfloyd6675 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeflateGate, if you wish to participate. The rationale given by the nominator was the NOTNEWS policy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This article does not need deletion, but it needs a complete overhaul. It is one of the most biased Wikipedia articles I have seen in a long time. The entire article paints the New England Patriots as innocent from breaking any rules, and paints the Ted Wells report as a smear campaign. This article should represent a neutral view of the situation, but it seems that it was constructed by New England fans who chose to only cite articles raising speculation against the NFL and exonerating the Patriots. It's absolutely awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.107.188 (talk)

There is no current deletion suggestion pending; this is an older discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is one of the most biased articles I have encountered on Wikipedia. Many speculative claims from pro Brady/Patriot sources are treated as canon. I suppose they might have more emotional investment in the story, as many unaffiliated fans are tired of hearing about it.65.100.48.240 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to discuss what specific 'biased' claims there are that you see as problematic, or to add claims from the other side. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Who initiated the investigation?

In the article, Background begins: "Following the 2015 American Football Conference Championship game on January 18, 2015, the National Football League investigated allegations that eleven of the twelve New England Patriots' game balls for that event had been underinflated...." I hear on Boston sports talk radio, but cannot find on the web, that:

• The Colts called NFL representatives' attention to a possible problem around halftime.
• It was then that the NFL representatives took the measurement.
• New or properly inflated balls were used in the second half, about which there is no controversy (except after-the-fact; is this "destruction of evidence"?).

That is, the NFL did not investigate allegations of a measurement; it investigated allegations and took a measurement. The current investigation is an attempt to determine if the violation of specifications was deliberate.

Also relevant to this article: Brady's stated preference for "soft" footballs, the Ravens' discussions with the Colts before the game, Spygate, and the NFL's strategic thinking about this scandal (versus earlier scandals concerning off-field violence by players) with a view to promoting the Super Bowl. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

File:Football signed by Johnny Unitas (1991.84).jpg shouldn't be used in this article as its a highly misleading representation of what the actual under inflated balls used in the game would have looked like. The ball in the image is nearly flat, while those used in the game were not. Further, it's a college football not an NFL one. -- Calidum 04:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Got any other images? Weegeerunner (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The majority of the world is not American and doesn't realize that "football" to Americans means this stupid oblong thing. It is appropriate to show one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not interject personal opinion in your posts. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

it was a funny picture, but the real deflated footballs looked the same as a normal football, therefore that picture could only be deceiving to some.--Mapsfly (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Calidum has broken 3RR and should be blocked.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mapsfly; none of the millions of viewers of this game saw anything wrong with the football. A visitor to this page does not need to be shown what an American football looks like. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Content merged from 2015 AFC Championship Game

A few minutes ago, I merged content from the fork article 2015 AFC Championship Game (which was previously tagged for speedy deletion). First, it had the same information on DeflateGate, which would frequently become out-of-date as most editors are making modifications over here instead of there. Second, the summary of the game should also be on this page as the whole controversy surrounds the game, which is convenient for the reader instead of looking elsewhere. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tom's personal preferences on his footballs"

Belichick's rhetoric passing the buck to Brady (as to whether Brady would prefer to play with illegal equipment) was seized on by reporters eager for controversy as "Belichick throwing Brady under the bus." However, beyond Belichick's denial of knowledge of a conspiracy, the remarks are not relevant to the scandal and should come out of the article. Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. -- AstroU (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a rationale? Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Some references in media say the Patriot organization coordinates Belichick handing off to Tom Brady, knowing the NFL will find nothing. -- AstroU (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, as media reaction to Belichick's first press conference is that it was short of categorical, and deferring to his quarterback feeds that reaction. In Monday's follow-up press conference, a "gotcha" reporter hammered Belichick on Spygate. The past transgression becomes notable as one factor encouraging adversaries to probe DeflateGate as a deliberate rules violation. By comparison, the addition of a See Also to Bountygate is now reverted, which is correct unless someone wants to use this article to argue that nothing in the NFL is on the level. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency between text and cited reference

The article currently states:

NFL custom used to be that the home team provided all of the game footballs. In 2006, the rules changed to provide that each team uses its own footballs while on offense.

But the reference to NFL rules cited in the previous paragraph, http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf , does not seem to say that:

Each team will make 12 primary balls available for testing by the Referee two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of

the game to meet League requirements. The home team will also make 12 backup balls available for testing in all stadiums. In addition, the visitors, at their discretion, may bring 12 backup balls to be tested by the Referee for games held in outdoor stadiums.

Can someone provide a reliable source for the statement about each team using its own footballs? I suspect there is such a rule, but I can't find it, and it probably ought to be cited in the article. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Weather during the game

(Moved from the article) Did anybody think to consider that when the balls were taken outside the cold temperature caused the pressure to drop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.159.149 (talk • contribs)

That's been discussed, though the game temperature (49° F.) was not severe for a January game in the northern U.S. The effect of an hour in the rain was brought up on talk radio by a high-school physics professor apparently unaware of the football's rubber bladder beneath the leather. Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Would the weather factor still not be relevant even though it was Bellichick's explanation for the balls being underdeflated in the game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyarnold2 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Weather would be a relevant, and even a likely factor. It is what the Patriots believe happened. It should be included, since the NFL investigation is ongoing. Plus the NFL has only confirmed two facts; one, that the 11 of the 12 Patriots game balls were underinflated; two, that an investigation was underway. It has not even been confirmed that the Colts balls were even checked. It is somewhat shocking that Coach Belichick wasn't informed of the underinflation during the game at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckbone78 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation

Yesterday, Jshdance added two paragraphs with an ESPN video interviewing football players to make the case that a "soft" football was easier to handle, and a blogger asserting that the Patriots' prowess in handling the football was statistically "nearly impossible." I reverted but then pared them down to a single paragraph, as I thought they were a sampling that illustrated the predisposition to accuse the Patriots; again, if we go there, then Spygate deserves a mention. Bigtrade 23 has now removed it. ("Speculation isn't relevant information. This is an encyclopedia of knowledge and information, not rumors and hot takes.") I don't really object, but it deserves a wider airing. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The NFL has only confirmed that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated in the first half. Every other report has not yet been confirmed and are often in conflict with one another. Most media reported are using anonymous "league sources." Nearly everything written thus far about this controversy is speculation based on unconfirmed reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckbone78 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And it turns out to be only one football deflated. Owner of the Patriots demands an apology. -- AstroU (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"the PSI" should be "the pressure"

PSI is a unit, the quantity is pressure. the pressure was low, not the psi. 92.196.3.28 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. You are correct. And that was for one football. -- AstroU (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Explain what makes it a scandal

For context, I think there ought to be some explanation of the reasons this matters. The article does not indicate how the degree of inflation of the ball would affect performance in the game. Surely there must be sources that explain how a deflated ball would give the team using it an advantage. That information belongs in the article. Ntsimp (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. The reason that actually makes an under-inflated football a "scandal" needs to be addressed. The "-gate" scandal needs some context. Most readers who are not football fans will say "Geez, what's the big deal? How does this rise to the level of a scandal?" I myself asked this very question at the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk. See here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Super Bowl question about DeflateGate. And I also assume that some reliable sources had to have addressed the issue of why the level of inflation in a football is important. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We had such material with citations, on which I minced words, covering both the tactical advantage of controlling ball inflation and the chronic suspicion of the Patriots for cheating. It was deleted as speculative. I don't like the most recent addition, because "Teams that use underinflated balls gain an illegal advantage" is too cut-and-dried; it implies that any team that underinflates must be conniving for advantage. In fact, as the article shows, the rules are designed to let teams tailor balls to the QB's liking (while staying in the rules regarding weight and pressure), and one quarterback has come out in favor of balls inflated on the high end. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS--My opinion is that the Pats did what they always do: prepare their 12 balls the way Brady likes them, inflated to the legal minimum (or below), which has led opponents to grumble but never to call them out on it. The weather, though mild, would have taken these balls below the legal minimum once they took the field--but probably not 2 PSI if they were legal to begin with. The Colts decided to make an issue of this (as a baseball manager delays a game to insist that the opposing pitcher change undershirt per the rule on "uniform color"), hoping to get in the head of Brady and the Pats. Officials inflated the twelve spares to the legal midpoint, the Pats used them in the second half, and they probably were not measured to see if they were still legal after an hour of being out in the rain. The proceedings took some portion of Colts' management time, which the Pats instead applied to a halftime adjustment of Xs and Os, dominating the Colts in the second half. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PPS--Am hearing on Boston's Sports Hub radio that information is "emerging" calling 2 PSI an exaggeration. Does Rule 2-1 "...an inflated (12½ to 13½ pounds) rubber bladder..." mean "you shall inflate it to" or "it shall have that pressure at all times during game play"? No one knows, no one has cared up to now. Predict tighter wording of the rule in the future, no punishment, no effect next weekend in Arizona. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to refer to it as a "controversy" rather than a "scandal". --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Context of the allegations on the heels of other incidents

Providing better context in the lead with regard to other recent incidents might help readers put the DeflateGate in perspective. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This concerns Sparkie82's new paragraph linking this episode to the Ray Rice scandal, which most recently I moved out of the Intro and into Media Coverage. I believe we don't need that level of detail here on Ray Rice; the gist is that the season has seen several embarrassing incidents, plus stop-and-go discipline on the part of the Commissioner. I had worked on comparable material (see #Speculation above), but other Wikipedians have been hostile to this speculation, as they may be to the "possibly due to" in Sparkie82's new text. Some description of the recent state of controversy, both across the NFL and as relates to the Patriots, may be useful to explain the legs under this scandal. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The other interesting contrast in terms of other incidents is the comparative lack of reaction to the allegations of cheating by the Atlanta Falcons in relation to fake crowd noise pumped in during opponent's offensive plays:[1] --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Media reaction

There have been a few edits back and forth (excellently summarised in recent edit summaries by User:ONUnicorn) in relation to the media reaction to the incident. Rather than trying to explain everything in edit summaries, I thought it might be better to try and flush these out on the talk page. My quick take on the position:

• There cleary was a media frenzy on DeflateGate. I am all for WP:RS but I really don't think anything more than simply stating that is necessary. The subsequent references in the section provide all the necessary support.
• When we are postulating on why there was such a media frenzy, I personally don't think we need to source each and every suggestion with a link to someone else on the internet suggesting the same. Fully understand we don't want to stray into WP:OR, but bullet points of possible reasons is a long way from that.
• Not quite sure I get the weasel words point. For me weasel words mean pregnant attributions ("some people say that"). That isn't what is being stated. Here the article speculates on possible reasons - not what people have said are possible reasons. As I said above, one should be mindful of risk of OR without descending to the mindset that "unless someone else has said it on the internet, you can't say it in Wikipedia". It is not OR to point out a potential or logistical inference.

Just setting out my thoughts. Welcome other views.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm not questioning that there was a media frenzy. I would agree we don't necessarily need a source for the assertion that there was a media frenzy.

On the other hand, delving into unsourced speculation on why there was a media frenzy is exactly what WP:OR is warning against. For example; the article mentions the Ray Rice incident as being a possible contributing factor to the media frenzy surrounding Deflategate. At first glance, they don't seem to have anything to do with each other; Ray Rice doesn't play for the Patriots or the Colts, one incident involves off-field misbehavior by a single player, the other involves on-field misbehavior by an entire team, they were months apart - - the only thing they have in common was they both involved football. The article is speculating that because of the earlier unrelated scandal the later scandal got more attention than it normally would have. From WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

Stating that the media reaction to the two unrelated scandals is somehow related is original thought; it's a new analysis of the material.

The link to spygate is a little stronger; it logically makes more sense than the link to Ray Rice because it involves the same team and there is a natural tendency for people to think "Patriots are accused of cheating in Deflategate -> Patriots cheated in Spygate -> Patriots are cheaters -> Patriots cheated in Deflategate." (In an aside; this is why evidence of prior bad acts isn't generally allowed in U.S. courts - we don't want juries engaging in that reasoning.) However, saying that it fueled the frenzy around Deflategate and providing a source from long before Deflategate happened that just discusses Spygate and doesn't discuss Spygate and Deflategate in relation to each other is a deceptive use of sources, and still OR.

The point about sports writers being bored in the run-up to the Superbowl and having pressure to still produce content is a good one; and the source you have cited almost supports it - the main problem I have is that the phrase is in quotes implying it is taken from that article and it isn't. Moreover, although the article discusses over hyped pre-superbowl scandals, it doesn't appear to attribute the hype to the pressure on journalists.

As for your point about weasel words - Yeah, point taken. The article doesn't currently attribute it to vague "some people" or "scholars" or anything like that, so maybe it's not exactly the best example of weasel words; but I'm still left wondering "who says?" that [reason] helped fuel the media frenzy behind Deflategate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

All sounds sensible. What we really need is a decent link to an article discussing "why was there such a media frenzy over DeflateGate?" to use as a RS for the principal contentions (and any others it may make). I'll try and do some hunting when I have a sec. Curious when I was diggging around, I did find this article which had a good quote that I liked and may try to work into the article: "The NFL’s handling of Deflategate and the media frenzy it generated are destined to be part of a significant case study in both journalism and law schools over the next few years, and it should." [2] --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I like that article you found; it makes some very good points and has good analysis. We should definitely work that in somehow. Meanwhile I found this CNN article that asks "why is this such a big deal" and then answers itself by comparing Belichick to a convicted murder and saying, "Also, there's this game coming up two Sundays from now called the Super Bowl ..." It's not stated as explicitly as could be, but it's a start. EDIT Also this one; though, wow, he has some strong feelings! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good finds. Say what you like about Chris Kluwe, he is never boring. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This was basically a WP:CONSISTENCY vs WP:COMMONNAME debate, and there was no clear consensus on which was more important (both are part of the five key naming characteristics). Number 57 21:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

DeflateGate → New England Patriots deflated football controversy – Both Spygate and Bountygate, even though those are the more used names, aren't the actual names for the articles, and I don't see why this is no different. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 19:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support we also don't use Attorneygate or Climategate either.--65.94.255.73 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose current suggested title for now. I'm concerned that the use of the date in the proposed title may be problematic. This results in the inconsistent naming conventions used by media and fans to dating the AFC Championship Game and the other NFL playoff games. This has caused Wikipedia articles take the form of XXXX–YY NFL playoffs as a compromise, such as 2014–15 NFL playoffs. In the 1970s and early 1980s, most of the playoff games were in December. Today, they are mostly held in January. As a result, a number of fans and media, for example, still consider the playoffs leading to Super Bowl XLIX (to determine the champion of the 2014 NFL season) as the 2014 playoffs, while others may call it the 2015 playoffs (because they are held in January-February 2015). Take our current 1995 AFC Championship Game article; there are citations that refer to it as the 1995 game despite the fact that it was played in January 1996. If I do a more extensive Google search, there would probably be an equally number of sources that use "2014 AFC Championship"[3][4][5][6][7] and "2015 AFC Championship" to refer to this same Colts-Patriots "DeflateGate" game. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "DeflateGate" is not its name (why the CamelCase?) but a colloquialism. A name such as that proposed is more descriptive, provided there are redirects from here and from Deflate-gate. Consistency of year numbering is a good, but separate, idea. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But, DeflateGate is its name. Isn't that what all the sources are calling it? Good question about the CamelCase, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perusing some of the article's footnotes, I see four different typographies of DeflateGate. Okay, it is a name, but not a formal name as Wikipedia tends to use. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia uses formal names. Rather, we go with the "most commonly used" name. That's my belief. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let it be clear that that I'm open to other suggestions, such as "2014 AFC Championship". It is just that the 2015 dating in the title will put the other existing or potentially-to-be-created AFC Championship Game articles out of WP:CONSISTENCY. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: Is "2014-15" better? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 22:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Does any good reliable source use that convention?[8]? Rarely. Unlike something like "2014-15 NFL playoffs"[9] Also, basically saying "Other Stuff Exists" is not a very good argument. "Spygate" required a disambiguation page, which is why that controversy was moved to a longer, natural disambiguation title. As for the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal article, its page history appears that it had been originally titled that way, and there merely has not been a discussion or consensus to move it yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps remove the date altogether, like New England Patriots deflated football controversy? Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded; it seems the controversy is hardly specific to the current year. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support or New England Patriots deflated football controversy to solve the date issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11 and In ictu oculi: I changed the move request to that title, just to get rid of the date issue. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Wait until after the Superbowl and see how the name sticks. -- AstroU (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Timing isn't a good argument. The article could still be moved even if the name is still used many years afterwards. In fact, Spygate has recently come up, and the article isn't called Spygate, isn't it? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 15:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most, if not all, RS call this Deflategate. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And not "DeflateGate". Could someone fix the spelling error of "DeflateGate" to "Deflategate"? It makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. DylanW (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- "DeflateGate" is simply a nickname for the scandal, as was "Spygate" in 2007 and "Bountygate" in 2012. If those two articles aren't named after their nicknames, then why should this one be? Aria1561 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

'Nickname' suggests that there is some official name of this scandal that it is substituted for, which I don't believe there is, nor has the NFL or some other body given an 'official' name. Why should we make up a name when we have one? Maybe the other pages should be at those names. I'm not familiar with how those pages were named but COMMONNAME would seem to suggest that. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zzyzx11's comments, that Other stuff doesn't matter, and this is obviously the most common name for this article, no reason to move it. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this is pretty much the only name the event is referred to by, unlike say climategate. The COMMONNAME is pretty obviously dominate over some made up name used by no one. I'm going to go ahead and BOLDly remove the capital "G" though.--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support because even though everyone calls it DeflateGate, it makes sense to have a name similar to the articles for Spygate and Bountygate for consistency's sake. Tonyarnold2 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support because "deflated" in this context isn't even the correct term. The balls were ever so slightly depressurized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckbone78 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's technically correct or not isn't for us to decide. It's what virtually all RS call it. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose -- DeflateGate is part of history now, and that is what Wikipedia documents. Do a Google-search or in other ways check how media treated the word. Reasons that DeflateGate was highlighted in the way that it was include: (1) cute and rapidly popular, and (2) the culmination of suspicions to that point. If another similar article is appropriate, so be it, but this article should remain where it is, "DeflateGate" (two capital letters). -- AstroU (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We should be consistent with the article names for Spygate (2007 New England Patriots videotaping controversy) and Bountygate (New Orleans Saints bounty scandal). Otherwise it will just look weird as the odd one out. Plus more generally we aim for technically accurate titles not common usage: everyone calls it a heart attack in common usage, but the article is more accurately entitled myocardial infarction --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted material

I removed the information below from the article since it was either poorly sourced or NPOV. Some parts of paragraph two are now in the article (under "Origin of the investigation").

The Naqi report and the subsequent fall-out immediately raised questions in the international media about ESPN's pro-Indianapolis / anti-Patriot bias in reporting the DeflateGate story.

Further allegations of the Patriots being the victims of a "witch hunt" arose on February 19th, when Colts GM Ryan Grigson admitted to reporters in a press conference that he had "raised concerns" (or filed a complaint about the Patriots) with the NFL prior to the AFC Championship Game (AFC CG). Grigson's admission contradicts the NFL's (specifically Dean Blandino's) insistence on January 30th that the NFL had found out about the balls at Half-Time during the AFC CG, and that the Patriots had not been subjected to a sting operation . It also further fuelled the theory that the Patriots might have been framed ..

Media interest in DeflateGate subsided significantly in the wake of Grigson's admission. On February 23rd, 2015 the NFL still had not commented on the matter; but DeflateGate had not been mentioned in news headlines for at least three days. This silence, in comparison to the intense frenzy surrounding the controversy during the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, intensified resentment among Patriots sympathizers who maintain that DeflateGate was contrived--whether by the media, the Colts or NFL insiders with Jets loyalties--to undermine Bill Belichick's Super Bowl preparations.

All parties await the Ted Wells report to clarify these issues.

Samer (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The "Khan Academy" sounds reputable but "HeadSmart Labs" doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, and while I'm sure they worked hard, it sounds like a few college students did a football experiment. If "a few college students conducted an independent experiment" about this issue, that's great, but not sure that is a reputable source. My friend Billy did an experiment on this too but I'm not going to put his name in the article as a plug, so I'm deleting that reference from the article. Shiggity (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The experiment the lab performed was widely reported; I would suggest that the name of the lab be removed but the reference to the test remain or otherwise be worked into the Khan Academy statement. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that a reference to the test would be appropriate if a valid, reputable source can be cited. Shiggity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times reported the study and had an independent expert review it: [10] 331dot (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with 331dot. The link to HeadSmart Labs should be to their paper, name does not need to be there. Note that they did not report what happened to the footballs when they brought them back up to room temp, only what happened when they were cooled off. Khan Academy is about theory, HeadSmart was about an empirical experiment. This is what scientists do, someone proposes a theory and then people test it. The current NFL rules ignore both theory and something that has to be noticed for years on hot and cold fields of play. Rcollman (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not about -gate or -ghazi

I have trimmed the lede. The explanation of what -gate means, or why anyone would name the scandal "something"-ghazi is not part of Deflategate. I presume these explanations were made to help fill out the original article, but it clearly has content and legs on its own. Choor monster (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections to the edit, but just to mention that sticking -gate on the end of a scandal is a peculiarly American thing (presumably dating from Watergate), but people from other countries might not understand it so readily. It is hard to predict where an article will go, but I am guessing that once there is a bit of a distance from the original incident the main notability of the scandal will be "Why did America become so obsessed with this?". Still astonishes me that on the day that a country's government (Yemen) was toppled by an Al Quaida sponsored group, the main item on the news was whether footballs in a game had sufficient air pumped into them or not. Instead of "Bloody hell, are we looking at another Afghanistan style fundamentalist state sponsoring terrorism" we got "Is Handsome Tom a cheater?". --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think ‑gate may be Not-You-centric, as opposed to US-centric. According to -gate this suffix has actually become international. I personally remember reading articles 30-some years ago noting that ‑gate had taken off overseas and in non-English languages. I don't know if a BVI-er like yourself follows UK news, but strolling down the -gate page turns up Sachsgate and Betsygate very quickly, which are two scandals that us Americans have never heard of, so it's certainly not us Americans adding the suffix all the time. More minor scandals in other countries are listed. (A famous non-US instance is Hackgate aka Murdochgate, which was covered in the US news, so I can't say who used that term, but I have a hard time imagining anyone here in the US caring enough to give that scandal a name.) Choor monster (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with Legis as to this article's ultimate disposition, the "-ghazi" notation will still be relevant (if only to the tune of half a sentence), as it denotes a more or less manufactured controversy. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think not, so far as this article is concerned. I don't think the name Ballghazi is going to catch on, and therefore we can ignore whether anyone understands its etymology or catches on to the political garbage. Choor monster (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I have misread ZSB above, so I am striking my first sentence as confusedly talking past ZSB. My second sentence stands on its own. Choor monster (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike Kensil?

Who exactly is this Mike Kensil character mentioned in the article? There are no references in the article itself and there is no Wikipedia article on him Beowulf (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a minor reference to his title (from the external reference quoted) but the article needs more explanation of why he is mentioned I think. Beowulf (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly is your minor reference to his title? I can't find it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as who Mike Kensil is, see this article: Who Exactly Is Mike Kensil? AKA – The Ringleader of Deflategate. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Consequences

According to the article, the only consequences of "Deflategate" are suspensions and fines. Is there no public debate at all about changing the rules? Such as: assigning the task of inflating the ball to the referee or some other neutral person? --79.182.15.169 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article seems highly biased in favor of the Patriots. It shames Wikipedia to have such a biased article. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please describe how exactly it is 'biased'. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most egregious biases I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Most of what is listed after "It also hinged on since-discredited scientific analysis that was performed by Exponent" in the Wells report section presents only one POV on a very nuanced subject. Tons of media articles have described the analysis in favorable terms, just as some out there have attacked it. To use the WP voice to say the analysis is discredited is not very encyclopedic.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I stopped by this article to just scan over it and I immediately felt as though I was reading something written by a New England supporter. There are multiple areas where the writing appears to defend the Patriots and slam the NFL. Good luck on getting this article fixed permanently until a lot of time has passed and media coverage becomes non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.151.244.179 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the flagrantly biased material was introduced in this edit on July 26. I've reverted as much of it as I could. —phh (^t/_c) 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Neologism tag

I removed the tag(and accidentally posted in mid-typing of the edit summary) because the current title is how this scandal is referred to by virtually all reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per consensus, predominantly on a common names policy basis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Deflategate → 2015 New England Patriots ball tampering scandal – Per New Orleans Saints bounty scandal and 2007 New England Patriots videotaping controversy. 207.6.121.132 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the above prior discussion; most if not all reliable sources use the current title to refer to this matter; we shouldn't need to make up a name when we have one that is commonly used. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose current proposed title. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In this case, little or no reliable sources are calling it "ball tampering scandal" compared to "deflategate". Per WP:COMMONAME, Wikipedia should not be using terms that little or no reliable sources are using. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  And as I previously stated in the above prior discussion: "Spygate" required a disambiguation page, which is why that controversy was moved to a longer, natural disambiguation title. As for the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal article, its page history appears that it had been originally titled that way, and there merely has not been a discussion or consensus to rename it to Bountygate yet. Here, "deflategate" has always been, other than a minor CamelCase change, the article title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose User:Zzyzx11 makes the points rather well. Also, this was discussed just 7 months ago. Vyselink (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. —phh (^t/_c) 19:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"special teams plays"

Is this a misspelling or can this be linked to an appropriate subject? -Gazprompt (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Did so. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Allusion on Celebrity Family Feud

I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but Deflategate was alluded to on an episode of Celebrity Family Feud in July 2015. One of the teams consisted of New England Patriot Rob Gronkowski and his family. The very first question was "Name something that can be inflated or deflated." The other person (It was a woman, but I don't remember who) buzzed in first, and when it was time for Gronk to give an answer, he playfully waved it off with "I don't even want this one!" After he got buzzed (for not giving an answer) and the audience finished laughing, he explained it would be awkward because people would ask questions. Steve Harvey laughed and told him, "Smart man!" A clip from this scene was actually used in the commercial for that week's episode. If I recall correctly, Gronk and his family won that round because the other family got three strikes and then the Gronkowski family correctly guessed "Tires". Evernut (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it being relevant here. Vyselink (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I also don't see it as relevant here. It doesn't affect the situation in any way. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just knew that sometimes articles mention references to an event in pop culture (like this- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone%27s_Vaults#Pop_culture). Since it's not relevant enough to include in the article, let's just leave it here as a piece of trivia and call it case closed. Evernut (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Language link to Norwegian

Be bold! Can someone please link to Norwegian, National_Football_League#Urettmessig_lavt_ball-lufttrykk_under_AFC-finalen_i_2015_-_deflategate at no.wikipedia.org ? --Clausenengen Trolls2 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For what purpose? 331dot (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can an interlanguage link point just to a section of an article? Wouldn't it be better to create a separate article on the Norwegian Wikipedia for this incident and then add it to the interlanguage thingy on Meta? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Can an interlanguage link point just to a section of an article?" Yes it can. Regarding the question if it should, i might comment that Deflategate is Greek to Norwegians that do not follow US media. (The essence of some of what Jimbo expectedly stands for, has inspired this edit.) --Clausenengen Trolls3 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This need more sources

After reading this, there seems to be way too many unsourced and poorly sourced material here for a controversial subject such as this, especially the summary of conclusions in the Wells Report. As with any other controversial subject, opponents and possible vandals can legitimately hide behind WP:BURDEN to remove such poorly sourced information. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, regarding the "K" ball and that section, the source for the Adam Schefter story supposedly contradicting the previous report mentioned (number 100) directs to a defunct YouTube page. Pathetic! Bdavid1111 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Framegate

Has this been commonly referred to as "Framegate"? Reading the citation given it seems to me that Brady's dad created that word simply as a means of expressing his opinion on this matter, not because it is a common term to reference it. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that "Framegate" is an alternate name being used on a common basis to describe the controversy (particularly in recent weeks) - certainly used at a level more common than "Ballghazi" (which has zero reference listed, by the way, yet remains in the article's lede untouched). The citation provided by the editor is only one example, I'm not sure why you would delete the contribution without seeing if other examples exist (and they do)- a simple Google search (including recent news) reveals the "Framegate" moniker being used in stories by SI, numerous New England-area media outlets and radio stations, NBC Sports, USA Today, bloggers etc., and in many cases are using the term on its own merit (not simply referencing Brady's father's statement). 192.133.12.123 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide links to those instances? I live in New England and had never heard of this term before Brady's father said it. Bloggers are not necessarily reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ballghazi originally had a reference; not sure where it went. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This Twitter link illustrates its common use pretty well I think: [11] - I examined all use of the term as a hashtag from Jan. 22 through today, and noted there were thousands of examples of common usage of the term to describe the controversy (including some examples before Brady Sr. said it publicly, although his proclamation was certainly the genesis of its popularity and widespread use as an alternate name for "Deflategate"; it gets referenced more and more from May through September as the controversy evolved and new information was released. Elsewhere, [12] continues to see it referenced in the body of recent articles, recent posts, and in commentary thereof, across a broad range of both news and opinion sites - the totality of evidence and sources suggest it is a common, well-understood alternate term (perhaps even more common than "Ballghazi") to DeflateGate. 192.133.12.123 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Twitter a reliable source for anything other than the views of the person making the comment? New organizations are not using the word separate from Brady's father frequently. Most of the hits in your google search are actually from the comments section of the articles.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; Tweets and personal comments are not reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello - I added the reference to "Framegate" originally. I did so because over the last few months, I've heard it literally on a daily basis on talk radio, seen it in the news, and heard people talking about it that way in conversation. I live in Rhode Island, so I imagine the reason is pretty clear as this is Patriots country - but the fact remains it is very commonly used as an alternate term, increasingly so since the court decision in Brady's favor. The reason why I added it to the article because it said "Deflategate, commonly referred to as Ballgahzi," or something to that effect, and frankly I have not once heard it referred to as Ballgahzi since the very first few days of the story, and since despite that it still said it in the article's first sentence, I figured it would be a good fit in terms of the article's neutral point of view to present a term actually being used by Patriots' defenders (the terms Deflategate and Ballgahzi are each pejorative terms; both insinuate the Patriots did something wrong; including "Framegate" adds balance by presenting the opposing view that they didn't (which a growing number of national sources have pointed out, most recently 60 Minutes Sports). I provided the link I did simply because it linked to the first significant reference to the alternate term - in USA Today, the second most widely read newspaper in the country. It was also mentioned in numerous other sources, and like I said, I've heard it daily and seen it daily since. I really don't see anything calling it "Ballgahzi," so if the argument is equally applied, either both terms should be there, or neither should and it should just be left as "Deflategate" without alternate terms. Anyway, that was my thought process when I first saw the article and that it did not mention "Framegate" - which some media sources (such as WEEI radio) have begun to refer to the story on a much more frequent basis in recent weeks. I hope this clears things up and why I made the edit. 72.195.130.242 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Deadspin has called it Ballghazi from the get-go, which I originally put in the lede; the Washington Post later had a short blog post about the two names (i.e. "Deflategate" vs. "Ballghazi"). Quick Googling shows NPR and FiveThirtyEight either mentioning the term "Ballghazi" or actually using it. At one point both the link to Deadspin and the WaPo post were references following this article's only mention of "Ballghazi;" not sure why they were removed. I don't listen to talk radio or watch much in the way of sports TV commentary, but I haven't seen a single reference in writing to "Framegate." TL;dr - "Ballghazi" is a relevant alternate name, "Framegate" is not. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Media reaction

I am wondering if the time has come to split the media reaction into two sections - the immediate media reaction in the two weeks before the Super Bowl (which was loud and frantic), and the more recent reaction as the new seasons opens up (which, to my mind at least, is more in the tenor of fatigue and just wishing the issue would finally die - "As DeflateGate fatigue descends, Tom Brady’s court case rolls on"). Views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Any other views? Otherwise I will plan to be bold! --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what just you're talking about, and since you asked, there's something I'd like to add. Maybe it's just me, but seems like when the story first broke, the sports pundits said, "Oh, how dare Tom Brady and the Patriots break the rules and not expect to get caught!" and more recently they've said, "Oh, how dare the NFL bully Tom Brady about this!" Like I said, maybe that's just me. I agree with your initial comments, but there needs to be an outside source to support this. Otherwise people will say, "That's just your opinion." Evernut (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deflategate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Deflategate-Amicus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deflategate. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222085237/http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Deflategate-Amicus.pdf to http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Deflategate-Amicus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Who's "Blakeman"?

Is this potentially referring to NFL referee Clete Blakeman?

Rehty77 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal citation

@TJRC, @Charlesaaronthompson: Please discuss the controversy over the legal citation of the appeal denial here, rather than in the edit comments. We're on the verge of edit war territory. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we're at an edit war; I think Charles just wasn't familiar with legal citation format, and made a good-faith effort to use {{cite web}} for consistency purposes, having not seen the format before. But this is the standard form (Bluebook) in which official legal sources are cited in the US. Some other articles that can serve as examples are Leo Stoller and Palmer v. Kleargear.com. They're more legal-heavy; but it's still a good idea to cite legal authorities using the standard form that's used to locate them. {{cite web}} wouldn't be appropriate, because you're not actually citing a web site; you're citing an order issued by the court, which happens to have been copies to a particular web site (in this case the NFL's, but it could have been anywhere, as a public domain document). TJRC (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it not be better to post the decision directly from the 2nd circuit court of appeals, rather than the NFL's copy of it? E.g., here? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A Second Circuit URL would be better; but that's the order that accompanied the three-judge opinion in April, not the en banc order from this week. Although it would be a good idea to have a link to the April opinion in the applicable passage. The opinion is the meat; it sets out the reasoning of the judges. When there's a separate order from the opinion, the order is usually pretty bare-bones and doesn't say much. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016, Reactions, NY Times: Please note Times reversal of opinion

The section on "Reactions to the Wells report," in what is currently its 2nd paragraph, shows that the New York Times took the position that the science shows that the Patriots almost certainly cheated. Requested additions: readers should be alerted that The Times has since reversed that position. The contrast between initial reaction and more studied reaction is central to understanding the evolution of the scandal.

Please insert the following at the beginning of the paragraph:

---

The New York Times initially concluded that science showed air was almost certainly removed from the footballs but more recently concluded that no air was removed.

Please append this:

---

Later, the New York Times reversed that position: the January 22, 2016 article, "True Scandal of Deflategate Lies in the N.F.L.’s Behavior," took the position that the analysis by Professor John Leonard, concluding that "no deflation occurred and that the Patriots are innocent. It never happened," is, in the words of The Times, "utterly convincing."

---

... To the following existing paragraph in the Reactions to the Wells report section:

Dated May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, the New York Times ran a story "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure.

---

Please message me if you have any concerns about this. Sincerely Robert (Rob) Young, Fitzwilliam NH

References

Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. I note that article is mentioned later in the section, so someone else may copy-edit it to limit redundancy or re-align the timeline. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ballghazi

I notice that someone again added "ballghazi" stuff. This was a contemporary political dig which went nowhere. Today it is not even recognized when used. Please discuss this here before adding again. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no one calls it that, except very briefly once. It's universally "deflategate" and doesn't require mentioning ballghazi... --Jayron32 00:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Technical change requested

I believe the following text is misleading: "however, a football is not a thermos, and the footballs would have rapidly started to re-inflate when taken to the officials' locker room for halftime testing"

"Re-inflate" implies that more gas (air) would be re-introduced to footballs, which is incorrect. More correct would be to say that the pressure would increase back to near its initial inflation pressure, but the ball itself is not "re-inflated" when taken from a cold environment to a warm environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcmiller (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)