Here's the difference....those women weren't getting ready to play as a team in the CWS, where there were distributed rules saying what would be expected. While I get the frustration (and the calls for hypocrisy of the NCAA), I'm amazed this is still an argument about what the potential risks were.PackFansXL said:
^^ There were plenty of "own it, be more responsible, should have protected yourselves, follow the rulz" tone deaf posts made recently. Change the choice to unprotected sex and see how much support you'll find for throwing women under the bus for their failure to protect themselves. We have millions of people celebrating the freedom of these women so they can willingly run down to the clinic for a quick extraction before they get back in the game. Right and wrong be damned, but hey, we got rulz.
Its like my son, who got a speeding ticket down near Whiteville several years ago, driving form WILM to CLT. First thing out of his mouth was, 'but it was a speed trap...blah blah blah". When I finally drove that section, I saw exactly what he meant, craziness to have the limit changing like that on what was a wide-open, flat, safe 4-lane road.
But...it did change (Dropped) and it gave you notice it was going to. So, as I told him at the time, the rule said "60", not "70". Its up to you to drop, or take the risk.
BTW, as for your example....your "what would the other side say", goes both ways....I'd bet a lot of the people screaming "you can't make me get a shot" would be the ones lining up to say "heyul no, you can't go down to the clinic" Strange bedfellows, indeed.
