A

I heard skip bay less arguing hard for B

I disagree strongly. Said it is just competitive. Would he be ok with the home team bugging the visitors dugout?

Skip alluded to qb Mics in football. One difference is both teams get this, not just the home team (covertly$. Also they turn the mic off before the play (the coach can't say 'throw it now lo right sideline')

Stealing signs at second is known by both teams so there is t an unfair advantage.

If they want to change the rules and let all forms of sign stealing be ok then no problem. All rules in sports are arbitrary.

A

The issue with 2017 was the league specifically ordered teams not to use electronic means in order to speed the game up. Teams were not covering their signs when no one was on base because of that rule. Astros took advantage of that trust.

N/M

C) Teams stupid enough not to change their signs on the reg deserve to lose games to teams smart enough to steal their signs.

Teams stupid enough not to __________ deserve to lose games to teams smart enough to.

Would you be ok with filling in the blank with?:
* hiring someone to shoot a laser in the batters eyes
* bugging the opponents dugout
* drugging the other teams water supply
* having runners yell 'got it' when running behind a fielder waiting to catch a fly ball
* cutting third on bunts down first base line with only two umps (high school situation )

A

Gun to head I'm picking A, though I don't get the term "highly illegal". The question isn't whether it was the right thing to do, it's how bad is it in a league that didn't have it as a specific rule and already allows other rules to be blatantly disregarded (doctoring balls, foreign substances, pine tar)? If you want me to tell you what's most "wrong" about this scenario it's the holier than though attitude of the mass turds that conveniently forget how often the rules are bent if not broken with a blind eye turned in the very same league whose pure virginity they claim the Astros to have stolen.

Even If we can a Agree A is the correct answer then the next questions are

1) how much of an advantage did this give the Astros?

2) were other teams doing it?
If everyone was doing it then it would be like cycling (our juiced up guy beat your juiced up guy).

also if everyone is doing it just change the rule saying you can use whatever technology you want to steal signs.

Clearly the answer is A.

A, but I would say using tech to steal signs and only relay to a batter when a runner is on second is no different than what the Astros were doing. I'm pretty sure just about every team in the league was electronically stealing signs, but the Astros figured out an easy way to relay to the batter without a runner on.

Bobby Petrino`s Neckbrace said:

---

C) Teams stupid enough not to change their signs on the reg deserve to lose games to teams smart enough to steal their signs.

---

And now all games are 4 hours, not 3. And it was a MLB directive - teams that took it as a strategic advantage should be punished harshly.

Quote:

---

1) how much of an advantage did this give the Astros?

2) were other teams doing it?
If everyone was doing it then it would be like cycling (our juiced up guy beat your juiced up guy).

also if everyone is doing it just change the rule saying you can use whatever technology you want to steal signs.

---

1) is irrelevant. in fact, for everyone involved, it's probably best if we don't know how often it was used.

2) if you go this route, your sport is dead. Maybe it continues on technically, but no one cares as much as it once did.

A