Monday, January 26, 2015

'Deflategate': Is "The Rule" Really the Rule?

For more than a week now, the sports commentariat has been hyperventilating over "Deflategate," the discovery that the New England Patriots used underinflated footballs in their 45–7 shellacking of the Indianapolis Colts in this year's AFC Championship Game.

Several sports commentators have called for severely punishing the Patriots for cheating, including suspending head coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady for the Superbowl and into next season. Pats fans, of course, disagree. And Belichick and Brady have held news conferences professing innocence.

I think the Pats deliberately used soft footballs for the game. I also think they didn't intend to cheat. Rather, what happened in Foxborough probably is similar to what happens in government regulation: the rules on the books are sometimes different than the rules everyone (including the regulators) recognize and play by, and when someone suddenly demands that things be done "by the book," it causes a bewildering mess.

To explain this, we first need a little background.

In 2007 the NFL decided to allow teams to supply the footballs that their offenses use during games. Within some parameters, this rule change allows teams to "doctor" the balls to their quarterbacks' preferences: roughing up the surface, oiling it, and inflating it to a desired level. Playing Rule 2 Section 1 requires only that the balls be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds of air per square inch. The footballs are then inspected by game officials prior to the game to determine if they are acceptable for play.

During the first half of the Indianapolis–New England game, the Colts apparently complained that the Patriots' footballs were underinflated. (There are rumors the Baltimore Ravens tipped Indianapolis to watch for this. The Pats eliminated the Ravens in a close game the previous week.) Because of the complaint, the officials checked the balls at halftime and found that 11 of the 12 New England footballs were 2 psi below the lower bound. The Pats then played the second half with properly inflated balls and turned a relatively close game into a rout. (It's unclear from news reports whether different balls were used in the 2nd half or the original game balls were inflated to the proper level.)

Given the 2007 "Spygate" revelations that the Patriots used video cameras to try to steal opposing teams' defensive calls, and Belichick's gamesmanship in everything from injury reports to player substitutions, many people have theorized that New England  submitted legal footballs for inspection, then deflated the balls or used some other chicanery before kickoff.

I have an alternative theory: the officials approved footballs that were inflated to only 10.5 psi—that is, the officials approved footballs that were in the condition that the Pats wanted.

Here's the league's lone official statement (so far) on the incident. It does say that game officials "inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that [the air pressure] standard is satisfied." But notice that it doesn't specifically say that the air pressure is checked with a gauge prior to the game, let alone does it provide a record sheet from the Championship Game showing the exact pre-game air pressure of each of the footballs.

I believe that, in the years since the 2007 rule change, game officials have increasingly given teams considerable leeway in doctoring the footballs That leeway may include confirming the balls' legality by simply handling and visually inspecting them and deciding that they "look alright."

Would that be shoddy officiating? Not if the officials are acting in the spirit of the rule change—after all, the change officially sanctioned each team's offense doctoring the football. And, over time, Brady and other league quarterbacks likely have increasingly doctored the balls and had them approved by game officials. By 2015, I suspect no one uses a pressure gauge to see if the balls are between 12.5 and 13.5 psi—rather, they simply want to know if the pressure is "alright" to the quarterbacks and officials.

We see similar laxity in some types of government regulation. Often, written regulations are so rigid that they catch up many technical violations that pose no true problem for public welfare. Over time, inspectors and their managers get tired of the often-publicly-embarrassing controversies these technical controversies generate, and begin to exercise discretion in enforcement. This discretion isn't (and often can't be) officially sanctioned, however. And so, both inspectors and the public grow accustomed to the use of that discretion—until a public complaint or a change in regulators results in reimposition of the "letter of the law" and a bewildering mess ensures.

This dynamic is no stranger to sports. Remember the George Brett pine tar incident, in which Brett's late-inning go-ahead home run was initially disallowed when the Yankees complained that his bat had pine tar more than 18 inches above the handle. That rule was rarely (if ever) enforced, Brett didn't intend to cheat, and all hell broke lose when it suddenly was enforced.

Now all hell is breaking lose for Brady and Belichick. It can be argued that that couldn't happen to two more deserving fellows. But, for what it's worth, Brady or Bellichick probably didn't do anything any different than what other teams do and what the officials allowed.

No comments:

Post a Comment