Did They Change The Balls Back?

Did they change the game balls back to what they previous to last year?

The balls again now have painted stripe.

I like to paint stripes on my balls too.

That's good. Wasn't there a claim filed agains't the league last year put in by one of the qb's who got tongue burn from the stitching from licking the balls (man that sounds bad :wink: ) to get a better grip? :lol:

I'm glad they went back to the stitchless variety, but if someone's licking the balls for any reason, it sounds to me like they brought it on themselves.

I've seen QBs lick their fingers, but I've never seen them licking the ball.

(That post was extremely difficult to do without sounding obscene.)

BigDave, you almost sound like you're obsessed with this licking the balls, oops I mean fingers, thing? What's up? 8)

Licking your finger is fine, but just make sure the ref washed his balls before the game if you're going to go around licking them.

What was the reason for stitching on the balls anyways?
If it caused such an uproar from QBs and probably a small to large expense to the league, who convinced CFL to put stitching on the striped part? and why?

They had a close up of the ball on TSN, and it was definately back to painted stripes.
The reason they went to stitching last year, was because the painted stripes get slick.
So they tried to fix that issue with the stitched stripes.
It always seemed to me it should have been possible to make a paint with greater grip somehow....I hope that is what they have now done.

Stickum.

The league was retarded to abruptly switch to a new ball without consulting the players or giving them ANY real advance time. It'd be like the NHL suddenly changing up goalie equipment without any warning, and without consulting the NHLPA. Ludicrous.

Anyway, I'm glad to see they've gone back to the old balls.

Ray and Glenn couldn't agree more, over 900 yards passing between them, and according to D Mac, you can thank the stitchless ball for part of that.

If you'll recall, the NBA did exactly the same thing, then returned the old ball after numerous player complaints.

I'm starting to wonder if this ball changing wasn't some kind of marketing ploy by the manufacturers or something.

I think the NCAA has been using stitching on the balls they have, white is partly around each end. So Wilson wanted to do the same thing in the CFL. I don’t know but as you say a marketing thing of sorts rp.

....this was the explanation given by the league office for switching the balls back:

[i]One of the first things Newton's equation of motion F=ma leads to is how far (h) a football falls in time t when a is constant, namely one-half gee tee-squared (h=?gt2) where gee (g) is the local acceleration of gravity, about 9.8 metres per second per second (g=9.8ms-2). So in the first second a freely falling body falls about 4.9 metres and is moving 9.8 ms-1.

Now let us find a critical endzone velocity vc such that in one second a body travelling with speed vc will move a distance x such that the earth's surface will fall 4.9 meters, the same distance the body will fall:

On our spherical world if your eyes are at a height h above the surface (h is -say- 4.9 metre) you can see the surface out to a distance x, the horizon distance or "dip". Pythagoras could work this out, just solve the right triangle whose sides are Earth's radius R=6378000m and horizon distance x and whose hypotenuse is (R+h) vis

Pythagorean theorem R2+x2=(R+h)2
algebraic expansion of (R+h)2 R2+x2=R2+2Rh+h2
subtract R2 from both sides x2=h2+2Rh

Now for the trick. Ignore h2 since 2Rh is much greater than h2 (2Rh>>h2) leaving

x2=2Rh.

If a body has a horizontal speed of x metres per second then both it and the surface will fall a distance h, the body is in circular orbit! Substituting 4.9 for h and 6378000 for R we find x=7900 so if the horizontal velocity is 7900 metres per second it is in orbit. Remember: near earth orbital velocity is 7.9 km/s.

Now we can get a general formula by substituting ?gt2 for h, x2=2R(?gt2), or, simply, circular velocity squared vc2=(x/t)2=gR.

The acceleration of gravity sometimes called little g (g) follows immediately from Newton's law of gravitation, g=F/m=GM/R2 so we can write down the general formula for circular orbital velocity vc2=(x/t)2=gR=GM/R. That is,

vc=(GM/R)?.

Big G=6.672 times 10 to the negative eleventh power, G=6.672x10-11. The Earth's mass is 5.977x1024kg so at the surface we get vc=(6.672x10-11x5.977x1024/6378000)?=7907ms-1. Just like we just showed, but now from "first principles".

We see the circular orbital speed falls as 1/distance?. For near Earth orbits, if we measure distances A in Earth radii, the circular orbital speed is just vc=7.907A-?km/s.

How long does it take a football to reach the endzone? time=distance/rate=40000/7.9=5063s or about 84 minutes. As an exercise, do an accurate calculation for a football 20 m above the Earth's surface (R=6578000m).

The Moon is Rm=3.844x108m from the earth and has an orbital velocity of 2p Rm (the circumference of the Moon's orbit) divided by 27.32x86400 (the time in seconds for one orbit) or v=1023ms-1. The value predicted by our (Newton's) formula is...the same! The square of the orbital velocity goes as the reciprocal of the orbital distance, which observation verifies Newton's inverse square law. Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo would have recognized this fact. But they were NFL lovers and therefore are not qualified to respond.

Say, what if we set vc=c, the speed of light? Then we could solve for Rc=GM/c2. This is the "photon circle", a distance at which light itself is in orbit! Note that all of the mass M must be inside the photon circle for this to work, a situation never found in the solar system.

There you have it[/i]

....whew, that was enlightening to say the least....

LOL! This reminds me about Shaq's press conference following the change. He said the difference between the original ball and the new was like the difference between a stripper and a blow up doll. I laughed so hard when he said that lol