[Kurn]

This:

The o-line question is different, I think. Sure, they are going against the rules to try and gain an advantage. But, is that the fault of the refs or the players that it is not called?

appears to contradict this:

I would say that doing something against the rules to gain an advantage is against the rules and it's cheating. End of story.


Either that or your saying that linemen who hold are only cheaters if their caught.

How many times have you hear an announcer call a pass interference penalty a "good" penalty because the receiver would've scored had the db not tacked him on the 20 while the ball was in the air.

It seems here (and I agree with this) that there are situations in a game where blantantly doing something against the rules is the tactically correct decision. Is that cheating? No. Its intelligent game play.

Lets use a baseball analogy. 3rd base coaches use complex signals. Why? because they know their signals are visible to the opposition *and* the opposition is going to attempt to break the code. Do you think that by watching the opposing 3rd base coach, a team is "cheating"?

To me, "cheating" means doing something so outside the normal parameters of the game that it alters the fundamental integrity of the game. Better phrased, cheating implies underhanded tactics. I guess by that definition, performance enhancing drugs are cheating (but then cortisone shots are cheating, too).

Clearly, multiaccounting and ghosting *do* compromise the integrity of a poker tournament. Thus those who do it are cheaters.

I am also 100% certain that observing and interpreting visible signals, even through the use of videotape does not compromise game integrity and thus is not cheating. Unless we're all going to be soccer moms and say, "OK kids, they're sending in signals, everybody close your eyes."

Gaylord Perry? Yeah, he cheated.