(We asked readers for their views on the scandal involving the New England Patriots’ footballs found to be under-inflated only during the first half of the AFC Championship game against the Indianapolis Colts.)
Attention should be on other issues
Our culture has collectively responded to irrational hype about football, the Super Bowl, and other sports entertainment, so it should be no surprise we inch closer to a cliff and go “ape” on deflated footballs. (My apologies to the apes).
As pointed out on CNN’s Reliable Sources (a show to address how the media handles their reporting on many issues), by a guest who was a former NFL player (Chris Kluwe), there are at least three other issues the media should be focused more on now regarding the NFL:
1. The criminal issues such as domestic abuse,
2. Public funding of stadiums, and
3. Concussions.
I agree with him. — MARY COLLIER
Analyzing a theoretical explanation
To be fair to the Patriots, there is a theoretical explanation for a loss of air pressure in their game balls, which may, or may not, be plausible. Presuming that all of the game balls (Patriots and Colts) were filled by the same persons, in the same place, at the same time, using the same air source, then the Patriots’ balls would have to “stretch” about 4 percent during their pre-conditioning ritual, which would cause the volume to expand, and the pressure to drop, and the balls would have to be stored at game time in such a way that they were exposed to a 20 degree Fahrenheit or so lower temperature than the original fill temperature, which would also cause a pressure drop. These are the circumstances that Bill Belichik was attempting to explain during his “Bill Nye, the Science Guy” moment.
The theoretical explanation might also account for why the kicking ball wasn’t under-pressurized, if the kicker: a) didn’t precondition the ball the same way, and b) perhaps kept that ball warmer during the first half.
However, given that none of the Colts’ balls exhibited any substantive pressure loss, presumably under a fairly similar set of pre-conditioning and temperature conditions, the only reasonable scientific conclusion is that the loss of pressure in the Patriots’ balls was unrelated to either pre-conditioning, or ambient temperatures, and was more likely than not the result of human intervention.
Since the balls were only under the supervision of the Patriots on the sideline, it would have been relatively easy, and largely unobservable, to simply insert a needle into each ball as it was being handled just prior to its use, and simply deflate it for a pre-determined, fixed time period, say 5-6 seconds. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't take much trial and error testing on a number of balls in the team's equipment room before a practice to know how much of an air pressure decrement to expect, by simply inserting a needle and counting "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi…..etc.," then measuring the resultant pressure with a gauge. — MIKE MARISCALCO
Taking the air out of accusations
Deflate Gate is an ill-thought out mistake by the NFL bureaucrats who lack training in basic science. Everyone in the northern states understands that properly inflated tires on cars in the fall are “suddenly” at a lower pressure in the cold of winter. It shows up as a little more bulge in the tire sidewalls.
So here we are in Massachusetts in the winter time at a game. Before the game the footballs are inflated and the balls prepared for the first half of play.
As the second half starts a new set of balls are prepared, inflated and brought out for the second half. Someone observes that the first half balls are lower inflated (softer) than the balls brought out for the second half. Where have the first half balls been? Outside in the cold of winter awaiting their call into service. Like tires they are lower pressure than the second half balls. It is science folks, just like auto tires getting lower pressure due to the exposure to winter temperatures the first half balls are lower pressure because of their longer exposure to the cold temperatures.
That is all there is to it. No one did anything with intent to cheat or disadvantage an opponent. Besides, they don’t use the first half balls in the second half. A perfectly within-the-rules practice by the Patriots was that Tom Brady prefers balls near the bottom of the specified ball air pressure. The rule is 12.5 to 13.5 psi. Tom asks that his balls be prepared to target near the lower limit — 12.5 psi. This is still in limits because they all know that the pressure can not be less than 12.5 psi (pounds per square inch pressure). I will bet that they checked the first half balls half way through the second half or later. The second half balls were adjudged OK.
Tell the whistleblowers to find some other insignificant wild goose to chase. — DON BOYER
How could quarterback not know?
I have not seen mention of the likelihood of conspiracy in the Patriot organization. Seem impossible that only one person made the decision to under- inflate the balls, did the inflation alone, and unwittingly used the balls. If an honest investigation proves more than one Pat employee was involved, it could bring down the organization. To believe that Brady alone used the balls for a half without knowing they were under-inflated is like believing a surgeon would operate with a dull scalpel for hours and not know it. —PAUL R. COOPER
NATURE WORDS
(We asked readers what they thought about the move by the Oxford University Press to eliminate dozens of nature words like “dandelion” and “minnows” as well as Christian words like “nun” and “sin” to make room for technical words like “broadband” and “voicemail” in the Junior Oxford Dictionary aimed at 7-year-olds.)
Kids need to be well-rounded
We, too, were alarmed to learn that dozen nature words were being eliminated from the Oxford Junior Dictionary. We feel that the words should still be included in the dictionary as well as the words "sin," "nun," "christen" and "saint." It SHOULD NOT mirror trends; it should help to teach children about the earth, animals, etc. Religious words should not be deleted either because this will make kids more "well-rounded." — DEBBY and BOB KAUCHER
Excitement of dictionaries wearing off
I am a dictionary user, used one twice this morning in fact. Retired teacher Leann Thacker has a great idea/point, “increase the number of words and give richer explanations.” But the truth is that school-age children probably do not use a dictionary very much. I have two third-grade grandchildren, one in Ohio and one in Indiana — they were both very excited about the dictionaries they recently received at school through a Rotary Club program. The Indiana third-grader and his buddies looked up naughty words but they were still using the dictionary. And as excited as my Ohio third-grader was for several days, I can tell you that the excitement has worn off (after all, kids are easily distracted) and it is laying on her dresser in her room (where she does not do homework).
But my point is that even though I am an avid dictionary user, I find myself using my Smart phone to look up words almost on a daily basis. The world at your finger tips, amazing! I also teach college science classes and dictionaries aside, the best way to learn about the natural world (if not watching a documentary on TV) is by getting out and experiencing it.
I would recommend a book for parents that can help with nature education of our children: "Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder" written by Richard Louv. And I would be remiss if I did not include an excellent book for teachers, written by a teacher, "An Ethic of Excellence: Building a Culture of Craftmanship with Students" written by Ron Berger. — JIM WOODFORD
We live in the world of nature
I would ask the question of the Oxford Junior Dictionary, what do you tell your child when a child asks what the yellow flower is in the front yard? Then they try to look it up to see what the “book” states.
Nature is the world we live in and it is important to be able look up the words and see what they mean. We do not live in/on a computer screen, at least not yet. — ROBERT L LINDSEY
FREE-RANGE PARENTING
(We asked readers if Danielle and Alexander Meitiv of Silver Spring, Md., should have allowed their 10- and 6-year-old children to walk home from a park without parental supervision. Witnesses reported seeing the children alone, then police picked them up about half a mile from their home. The Meitivs, who are being investigated for possible neglect, defend their decision to let their children walk a mile by themselves. They maintain they’ve taught their children to walk together, starting with short trips around the block, and that their goal is to help their children become confident and healthy adults. The Meitivs say they exercise ‘free-range’ parenting — a philosophical movement in reaction to ‘helicopter’ parenting.)
Children’s freedom should be earned
Based on the response the Meitiv’s provided for allowing their children to walk home alone I feel they are good parents. In today’s society many parents don’t prepare their children to become responsible adults, but shelter them from it. If you give children responsibilities at a young age like making their beds, taking out the trash, being respectful, helping prepare meals, doing laundry and yard work, you are developing skills that teach teamwork, confidence, independence and leadership.
At age six I was helping plant and harvesting our garden, at eight cutting wood and mowing the grass. At 10 I was doing odd jobs for neighbors like raking leaves and shoveling snow. My younger sister and I would ride our bikes to the park and swim center that was 1.5 miles from home. We would leave home after lunch and arrive home by 4 p.m. Dinner was always at 4:30 p.m. and we were never late — we knew consequences.
My sister and I had a blast in our youth and actually acted and felt much older than our years. We were given a lot of freedom, but it was earned. The lessons learned very early in our youth prepared us to become good students, pursue higher education, successful carriers and become responsible adults as well as parents. — ALAN SCHIDE
Protection from an ugly world
I understand parents wanting their children to become independent and responsible but at what risk to the children’s safety? I would not want my children or grandchildren walking this far alone, not in this world. Do they allow there children to wander the mall or store without supervision? And I wonder whom they would blame if their children disappeared?
I would consider the children walking a distance alone if they were in sight of the home and the parents' view but not a mile. The world is ugly and it is up to parents to educate their children about that ugliness but it is also their duty to protect them for a reasonable amount of time. I think these parents are greatly pushing their luck. — KAREN VERNON
Recalling a 40-mile trek to the toy store
I am reminded that one fine day when we were living in England, my brother and I, aged 10 and 13 respectively, asked our parents if we could go into London by ourselves. One of our destinations was a particularly fine toy store on Oxford Street. We told them that since we had accompanied them many times into London we felt confident we could navigate the system. London was 40 miles away and involved trains and the subway system or Underground, as they call it. Our parents assented and gave us a suitable sum of pounds, and we were off. We had a wonderful time. It was great to be free from parental supervision, to manage our money and to plan our itinerary. We encountered no problems at all. I guess I should add that the year was 1959.
Whoops! I hear you cry. The world is a different place today. Is it really? Is it really worse or do we just talk about it more openly? Do we just have the perception that it is worse? London, England, was hardly a “safe” city then or now. But the issue was perception and risk management. Our parents knew we: 1. had the ability to complete the tasks we had chosen, 2. could ask for help if necessary, 3. were responsible kids for our ages, 4. blended in as we resembled any British school kids out on a lark. In other words, the risks were manageable. An additional benefit was that we got a huge dose of independence and positive self-esteem from the exercise of our skills.
I don't know that I would recommend that school aged kids run off to Chicago for a day on the town, unsupervised, but I really don't think a mile walk from the park should get anybody riled up. If the children were walking purposefully, acting responsibly at intersections, etc. they were gaining far more from the experience than they were risking. It can happen — but what are the chances, really? — CHRIS NOAH-COOPER
Several factors to consider
In many parts of the country elementary students who live a mile to a mile and a half from school are required to walk to school, no busing. In my opinion walking home from a park would be safer (assuming daylight) than walking to or from school as that means the child will be at the same locations twice a day where a walk from the park is random. A lot depends on the area in which they live. — C. W. MCCOY
Seeking answers to several questions
My gut instinct says kids are coddled too much these days but you need to look at the neighborhoods, the amount of traffic and even the maturity level of the kids involved. Plus, do the parents know where they are? Do they have cell phones? Are they dressed for the weather? Could they give authorities their home addresses? Again, it depends. — GREG OEN
About the Author