I am not going to say you are wrong but I just don't understand the logic.
Some idiots just want to make up their own new rules. There is a reason that there is a focus on the "recording" part of the rule in other games your team is not involved in...
DJ Silly et al- The aggregate intellect here is an embarrassment to Rutgers.
Let's try to slow this down for you- and I know damn well, you are purposely trolling and @DJ Spanky really should do something about it at this point.
End thread. Shelby you're a mental midget and Siberiacuse fan
Holy god you are dumb. You don’t know what in-person means. If Michigan’s allegations are true, then yes Rutgers and Ohio State performed in-person, advanced scouting for Purdue. It can’t be any more clear.
If it's legal to share but not legal to get, seems like we could disqualify the other teams by sharing our info with them unprompted. Genius move by Rutgers here.
Funny, but nowhere does it suggest it’s legal to share. That it’s illegal doesn’t need to be cited bc that’s already covered/redundant by the ‘receive’ ban.
You know that’s false here. Both parties are complicit, just like both Stalions and the UM coaches are guilty.
I'm a lawyer and have been for (gulp) more than 45 years, so I don't need to play one. What Michigan did violates a written rule that has long been in place. There's no ambiguity about the rule, and no doubt that Michigan violated it. That's all we need to know.
Is there evidence that Rutgers recorded UMs signs? Did they send someone to other games to scout for their signs?
Yes Michigan did. But how do you not see that Rutgers and OSU did not also provide in-person, advanced scouting to Purdue following their games with Michigan ? The rule doesn’t distinguish between intel coming from in-house or from other programs.
in upstate NY is it legal for a brother and sister to have a kid together or did your parents understand the rules? Maybe they thought that since it didn't say that you can't do it when Daddy was watching, that it was ok.
You are interpreting it in ways that suggests you want Rutgers (or Schiano) to get in trouble. No rational/impartial person interpets it that way.
Right RU and OSU obtained it in person but but Purdue did not, and that’s why it’s not allowed.
Exactly - so you do get it. If everyone steals signs, how can one team be slammed for getting a "competitive advantage"? Ohio State had Michigan's signs, had changed their own signs and still got smoked by UM. It can't be that big a deal.
No I don’t want RU to get in trouble. I think this kind of intel sharing is rampant. I’m sure RU receives as much as it gives. I am sure everyone does it, or hopes to.
Let me put on my lawyer hat again. You're right that, well, it's only a few thousand dollars. But this is an express rule that has been around a long time. It's important that rules be enforced vigorously and that Michigan get more than a slap on the wrist. Otherwise we're creating an atmosphere in which everybody knows that a rule can be violated with virtually no consequences. It's impossible to enforce any rule unless people know that they will be punished for violating it.
THEY BROKE THE RULE THAT IS IN PLACE.
Exactly the point. You recognize it was in-person scouting. ‘In-person’ doesn’t only mean by Purdue. It means by anyone.
No, the rule isn’t ’you can’t travel’. It says in-person, advance scouting isn’t permitted period, whether by you or by another party.
CBS had camera men "in-person" so- if Iowa has anyone watch our game last week and take what they saw and used it in our game...you are really a stupid person- no wait- you are a Cuse troll...
Watching television video isn’t against the rules. That’s not ‘in-person’ sign stealing. It’s sad the great lengths you’re going to refute the obvious facts.
That was as much BS then as Colorado saying Matt Rhule and Nebraska "disrespected the Buffalo".
Is implied since it’s not addressed specifically in the rule.
