Article content continued

It seems wildly improbable that a Patriot deflation scheme would so exactly match the bias between referee Anderson’s two gauges (or that they would attempt deflation as inconsequential as 0.38 psi.) The amount is alternatively explained by referee Anderson using the Logo gauge for these Patriot balls and later inattentively using the Non-Logo gauge for Colt balls – just as NFL officials did at half-time.

The two “0 psi” Patriot balls must have been gauged with the Non-Logo gauge. The NFL’s Wells Report says that two Patriot balls were pumped and re-gauged by the referees pregame. If referee Anderson put the gauge back in his pocket between activities, each selection would be a random draw.

Outliers are of particular interest in statistics. 0.5 psi inflation exactly matches the difference between nominal Patriot and Colt inflation levels. It scarcely seems possible that a Colt ball could have been included in the Patriot bag but, remarkably, there is contemporary support. Colt defensive half D’Qwell Jackson had claimed that the Patriots were using a Colt ball late in the first half. Inadvertent inclusion of a Colt football would also explain another loose end: There were 11 balls in the Patriot bag even though one intercepted ball in NFL possession and one given away as a souvenir should have left 10.

In order to explain otherwise inconsistent half-time measurements, Exponent concluded that NFL officials had inattentively switched gauges between measuring Patriot and Colt balls and then later transposed measurements of the third Colt ball. Inattentive gauge switching provides a plausible explanation of observed variability that was not provided by simulated surreptitious washroom deflation. But, in the arbitration hearing, Exponent said that “we were actually told to assume” that Anderson switching “gauges in the middle of his pre-game measurements” “did not happen”. Exponent did not say who imposed this limitation or why it was imposed, but the limitation ought to have been resisted and, if externally imposed, ought to have been disclosed.

Had the Logo simulations been done as described (rather than with the apparent error), then events might well have taken a different course. I reported the error on June 29 to Ted Wells, lead author of the Wells Report, and subsequently to its peer reviewer, Daniel Marlow of Princeton. But even though serious decisions are being made, the technical problems remain uncorrected.

Stephen McIntyre is editor of Climate Audit. @ClimateAudit