Entertainment desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 23

Super Bowl question about DeflateGate

In the 2015 Super Bowl, it has been alleged that the Patriots deflated or under-inflated the footballs. What does this do, exactly? In other words, what are the results if a football has been deflated? And how does the deflation of footballs give one team an (unfair) advantage over the other? I have no idea. Full disclosure: I know absolutely nothing about football. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that an underinflated ball can be easier to grasp, giving the quarterback somewhat of a competitive advantage. Each team supplies 12 of their own footballs for game play while on offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When you grab it your fingers will sink in deeper, to get a better grip. This would be especially important for players with smaller hands. Does the Patriots QB have smaller hands than the average QB ? StuRat (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it was not in the Super Bowl, it was in the NFC Conference championship game. I don't think it has to do with the size of the QB's hands, it's just a matter of personal preference. An underinflated ball is also easier to catch, especially in cold conditions. --Xuxl (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there weather conditions in which the ball would naturally change condition or inflation? Hack (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen degrees below zero should do it. I don't think any modern NFL game has been played in those conditions, though per a polar vortex newspaper (Minnesota has a dome, maybe they shouldn't, it would give them a great home field advantage). I'm sure they warm the balls up before measuring them, though, it'd be kind if silly for a ball to get illegal when the temperature changes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikings are currently an outdoors team until the Metrodome's replacement is completed. At this point, the probability of them playing football in January seems rather slim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 below describes the conditions during the 1967 NFL Championship Game. There has been endless commentary about that game, but I don't recall anything being said about the balls deflating from the cold... and if they did, both teams would have had that same "advantage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't deflate but they would depressurize. The leather must've been less flexible, making this less helpful and noticeable. And it would be barely below the legal pressure if it was left in the shade to chill, and probably warm up enough during use to become legal pressure. So, not very noticeable. Anyway, that was before the Super Bowl-era (by days), so not modern, at least if you wanted to sensationalize the then-current polar vortex (didn't even reach our 2004 low of +1°F..). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That game was the lead-in to the first Super Bowl, so it was definitely in the Super Bowl era. And it defends how you define "modern". It's not difficult to argue that the "modern" NFL began with the first championship game in 1933. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? They measure the balls before each game? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The officials check the status of all game balls at some point prior to the game. The teams retain their respective sets of 12, while the officials retain the ones used for kickoffs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the allegation here? That the officials checked the balls; they checked out just fine; after they checked them, the officials handed the balls over to the Patriots; and it was at this point that the Patriots manipulated the balls? Is that the scenario of the allegations? In other words, the manipulation occurred after the "official" check, but prior to start of game play? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the gist of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And doesn't that make no sense whatsoever? And clearly defeats the whole point of some neutral third-party official making sure that the balls are OK and that everything is on the up and up? I mean, if a team wanted to manipulate the balls, they clearly would not do so before the officials gave their inspection and their OK. They would clearly do it after the inspection and the "official OK" (as is alleged here). So, if the point is to make sure (through some neutral third-party) that the balls have not manipulated, how does this system achieve that? This method defeats the whole purpose of the inspection in the first place. Am I missing something? The NFL officials couldn't figure this out? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teams have been messing with balls for years, if you follow the stories, they have recently brought back a story that ran several years ago where Aaron Rodgers had candidly admitted to tampering with the balls. It's one of those things that everyone does and no one talks about. This story is really more about the fact that Belichick has the personality of a cold, wet blanket and that the Patriots win a whole shitload of games. This sort of "cheating" is admittedly rampant and unenforced, at least until coach with an unlikable media personality gets accused of it, and then it's a capital offense. --Jayron 32 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense and is likely true (in the "real world"). But, in theory ("on paper") how is this inspection process useful? How is it supposed to work? At least on paper, the NFL states that they don't want the balls manipulated (I assume.). That being the case, how do they advance or defend a policy that defeats itself (i.e., giving the ball back to potentially be manipulated after it has been inspected and deemed to be not manipulated and, furthermore, giving it back to the very people who are being policed and from whom the manipulation is feared)? The whole thing seems ridiculous, and I am actually laughing as I type this. I am just not sure if the whole thing is just "window dressing" and a "sham", or I am sort of missing something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are often reactionary rather than proactive. It's reasonable to suppose that this will lead to some sort of procedural change, for example the officials keeping each team's 12 just as they already do with the kickoff balls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because people in charge are usually idiots. What kind of retard thought that putting a parking garage under a World Trade Center tower and letting anyone park there was a good idea? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same "retards" who put parking garages under numerous other high-rise buildings. Stay on-topic, please. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National anthems at events, if said national anthems have the same melody

What would happen if, at events between two countries where two anthems have to be played, notably in sporting events, the two countries have national anthems which share a melody? For example, theoretically, what would happen if countries like Finland faced Estonia, Tanzania faced Zambia, the United Kingdom faced Liechtenstein, or perhaps the most extreme example, Greece and Cyprus, which have the same national anthem, faced each other? In these cases, would the melody have to be played twice, once for each nation, or will playing it once suffice? I know of one precedent though: whenever England faces Northern Ireland, if England uses God Save the Queen at said event, the anthem will only be played once since GSTQ is also Northern Ireland's anthem. But what about the aforementioned cases? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it usually gets played twice. Our article on "God Save the Queen" writes: "The same tune was therefore played twice before the Euro 96 qualifying match between Northern Ireland and Liechtenstein; likewise when England played Liechtenstein in a Euro 2004 qualifier." ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I watched the opening of an England-Liechtenstein football match a while back. Both God Save the Queen and Oben am jungen Rhein were played and sung. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been a more common occurrence had the Germans kept their previous national anthem, abandoned in 1922, Heil dir im Siegerkranz which also used the God Save the Queen tune. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]