I Heard Kim Mulkey Speak on Saturday

[sybarite]

??? How is it cheating if the rule book doesn't prohibit the activity? I don't understand your point.

Intent, Norm. Intent. The law doesn't have to address each type of murder in specific.

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

Intent, Norm. Intent. The law doesn't have to address each type of murder in specific.

Wut...:capelspin

 

[SoonerNorm]

Intent, Norm. Intent. The law doesn't have to address each type of murder in specific.

I still don't understand. Either there is a rule or there isn't. If none exits, there can be no violation and intent doesn't apply.

 

[sybarite]

I still don't understand. Either there is a rule or there isn't. If none exits, there can be no violation and intent doesn't apply.

Intent doesn't mean anything to you? It does to the law, and to the NCAA.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Intent doesn't mean anything to you? It does to the law, and to the NCAA.

How does intent apply if no rule was broken? Can a law abiding citizen be arrested for thinking about breaking the law even though he never breaks the law?

 

[35TangoTango]

I still don't understand. Either there is a rule or there isn't. If none exits, there can be no violation and intent doesn't apply.

There is a rule and it's very specific. Coaches are not allowed to sit with or communicate with players or parents of players at AAU games. If you read the articles that everyone has referred to about this violation, the articles list other coaches or assistant coaches who have had kids playing on elite AAU teams and they honored the rule. Kim did not.

This is well documented. True Colors trying to ignore this is about like Karl Rove on the Ohio vote.

 

[SoonerNorm]

There is a rule and it's very specific. Coaches are not allowed to sit with or communicate with players or parents of players at AAU games. If you read the articles that everyone has referred to about this violation, the articles list other coaches or assistant coaches who have had kids playing on elite AAU teams and they honored the rule. Kim did not.

This is well documented. True Colors trying to ignore this is about like Karl Rove on the Ohio vote.

Syb is talking about intent when no rules are broken. I don't get it.

 

[sybarite]

Syb is talking about intent when no rules are broken. I don't get it.

True Colors is attempting to state that there is an exception for parents who happen to be coaches, i.e., parents can sit with kids, hence with the parents of other prospects. I don't know that the NCAA specifically excludes parents who are coaches. The intent of the rule was sufficiently clear that only Kim found that it was not a rule. In essence, she was trying to state that it wasn't murder because the state law doesn't specifically exclude pushing someone out of the plane as one of its definition of murders. Laws and rules rely on intent, not specificity. Nobody other than Kim found that there was any "exception."

 

[SoonerNorm]

True Colors is attempting to state that there is an exception for parents who happen to be coaches, i.e., parents can sit with kids, hence with the parents of other prospects. I don't know that the NCAA specifically excludes parents who are coaches. The intent of the rule was sufficiently clear that only Kim found that it was not a rule. In essence, she was trying to state that it wasn't murder because the state law doesn't specifically exclude pushing someone out of the plane as one of its definition of murders. Laws and rules rely on intent, not specificity. Nobody other than Kim found that there was any "exception."

Sorry but your argument and accompanying example make no sense to me.

 

[35TangoTango]

Sorry but your argument and accompanying example make no sense to me.

Me neither. However, TC's statement that there is an exemption for parents who happen to be coaches is false. Therefore the whole issue of intent is moot. What we have is the actual breaking of an actual rule.

 

[True Colors]

There is a rule and it's very specific. Coaches are not allowed to sit with or communicate with players or parents of players at AAU games. If you read the articles that everyone has referred to about this violation, the articles list other coaches or assistant coaches who have had kids playing on elite AAU teams and they honored the rule. Kim did not.

This is well documented. True Colors trying to ignore this is about like Karl Rove on the Ohio vote.

Please cite this "very specific" rule that you are referring to.

Thanks,

TC

 

[True Colors]

Me neither. However, TC's statement that there is an exemption for parents who happen to be coaches is false. Therefore the whole issue of intent is moot. What we have is the actual breaking of an actual rule.

Wanna bet?

TC

 

[Gator]

Me neither. However, TC's statement that there is an exemption for parents who happen to be coaches is false. Therefore the whole issue of intent is moot. What we have is the actual breaking of an actual rule.

My understanding: There is NO rule about where a coach can and can not sit. There IS a rule about when and where a coach can discuss certain things with a parent or player. THIS is the rule which was broken.

At least one coach in a similar situation choose to sit where coaches usually sit rather than with the parents of players to avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding and/or a parent wanting to discuss something which was not permissible. It is that type of attitude which would have saved KM's butt. At least on this issue

 

[True Colors]

35Tangotango,

Can you please cite that "very specific" rule that you told us about.

Thanks,

TC

 

[35TangoTango]

Gator is correct. The rule is not about where you can sit. It is that Recruiters (coaches) are not supposed to have contact with players or player parents at AAU or high school games.