Says Jason Whitlock:

Quote:

---

There are some mistakes coaches can't survive. Brian Kelly made one Wednesday.

---

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/notre-dame-must-fire-brian-kelly-over-student-death-102910

Possibly, but not because of the kid falling. I think that there are quite a few folks who may be looking at criminal negligence inquiries, but if Kelly had ND off to a great start on the field, we wouldn't be talking about this being his downfall. Sad, but true.

I agree with the article. Shameful criminal negligence by the coach and apparently the AD who attended the practice.

Accidents happen. And this one was especially stupid. What is unforgivable to me is the decision to continue practice after the accident and the decision to hold practice yesterday, if that's the decision that was made (last I read it was still under discussion - and my bet is that Kelly pushed for practice, just like he pushed for outdoor practice Wednesday because he hates the indoor practice facility.

Many people made mistakes leading up to the accident and the tragic death - but how you respond afterward shows a lot about your character. Brian Kelly showed me he is callous and cares only about winning, not the lives of young people. Not a good person to coach college football, in my opinion.

Kelly is the Captain in Charge (AKA CMFIC)

as such he is responsible for this negligent death.

He should be fired sooner rather than later.

drunkoski;406654 said:

---

the only way i see it as justifiable is if the kid came to the coach, told him he didn't want to do it, and the coach told him to do it anyway.

---

are you saying that the head coach may not have been at fault in any event?

Does the HC need verbal notification that a videographer using an aerial lift feels unsafe in the present weather conditions? In other words, we absolve the HC for failure to exercise reasonable judgment?

I wonder if Brian Kelly would have felt safe on that aerial lift on that day.

Clearly, an investigation is called for.

My God guys! At the start of the season the HC says film the practices. Do u think he gives it a second thought after that whether he is 4-4, 0-8 or 8-0.

Give the guy and the position a break. There are a lot of things to worry about and filming practice is not close to the top.

That being said if he was made aware of the problem then its a different story. But i find it hard` to believe that someone came to Kelly and said "Coach there is a dangerous situation occurring" and he replied " Tough #$%^ we need this segment filmed".

RealDrew2;406653 said:

---

I agree with the article. Shameful criminal negligence by the coach and apparently the AD who attended the practice.

---

It certainly does sound like severe negligence.

I'm not a fan of heights. I went to the 2000 US Open golf tournament at Pebble Beach, and was looking at the temporary camera stands used to capture big-picture shots. They were made of scaffolding and plywood - maybe 6'x6' and stacked 60' high. A cherry picker seems more secure, but they can shake and (obvious after this incident) aren't stable in high winds.

LafayetteBear;406649 said:

---

I think it's a bit harsh to fire Kelly. The consequences were terrible, but it was not intentional wrongdoing on kelly's part. It was negligence. Our laws typically attach far less severe sanctions to negligent acts than they do to intentional misdeeds.

Swarbrrick, IMO, made an ass of himself in his interview yesterday. He looked and sounded like a guy who was more concerned about a prospective lawsuit, and with fending off blame, than a guy feeling sorrow or contrition for the fate of poor Declan Sullivan.

---

that Swarbrick looks like a guy trying to deflect blame, at the very least. More to the point, Swarbrick looks like a guy with a guilty conscience.

I wonder, though, how you can jump to the conclusion that Kelly was merely negligent. Don't you think that an investigation is absolutely essential, regardless of any possible outcome?

drunkoski;406654 said:

---

the only way i see it as justifiable is if the kid came to the coach, told him he didn't want to do it, and the coach told him to do it anyway.

---

If this happened in industry, someone would absolutely be fired for not following the lift policy of 25 MPH winds. If the AD or Kelley knew the kid were up there, they should shoulder the blame ultimately being the ones in charge. I might say the AD should be fired instead of Kelley, because he is the one that needed to make sure the video people were aware of the restrictions and dangers of the lift.

If the kid came to the coach and said he was scared to go up, most definitely he should be fired, but even if he didn't, a supervisor is responsible with providing a safe workplace.

Whole thing is sad.

drunkoski;406678 said:

---

no. he's clearly at fault. he's the head of the program. that doesn't mean he should be fired for it.

---

If Kelly's at fault, and his actions or inactions resulted in the death of someone else, why shouldn't he be fired? After all, we agree that the death occurred in connection with the Notre Dame Football program. Further, we agree that Kelly is at fault for either being negligent or indifferent to the risk to human life.

If you're the President of the University of Notre Dame, and the AD won't fire the head coach, why wouldn't you fire the AD and head coach? I thought Catholics value human life.

waltwa;406675 said:

---

My God guys! At the start of the season the HC says film the practices. Do u think he gives it a second thought after that whether he is 4-4, 0-8 or 8-0.

Give the guy and the position a break. There are a lot of things to worry about and filming practice is not close to the top.

That being said if he was made aware of the problem then its a different story. But i find it hard` to believe that someone came to Kelly and said "Coach there is a dangerous situation occurring" and he replied " Tough #$%^ we need this segment filmed".

---

Yes i do think that they give it a second thought or at least should...

Quote:

---

"I don't know if we'll be inside or out," Tressel told Ohio reporters 24 hours before the Notre Dame tragedy. "It looks a little nasty. I worry about our cameramen, their well-being up there 50 feet in the air."

---

Without reading the article, I would have said "no way". After reading it, I can see the case. It does sound like things picked up dramatically right before the accident. Whitlock is being a bit sensationalist when he challenges whether Swarbrick knew that stuff was stationary before he arrived - it's pretty easy to see whether the gatorade containers, etc. were upright when he showed up and then started blowing around.

Without being there and being able to really know how crazy things were, it's pretty hard to make a judgment. The quote by Tressel is pretty damning though and is maybe the most powerful point which would lead to an argument that Kelly should be fired. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who was on the scene as to how obvious it was that this was a potentially dangerous situation. Based on the poor kid's twitter posts, it should have been obvious to most that this was a bad thing.

gmp - must say I was reminded of the death during the construction of the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. Wind blew scaffolding onto the guy on the ground, as I recall. Whatever happened there? This kid's family oughta get ahold of the plaintif's attorney in that case.

It's a sad situation regardless of who's at fault. I think it is too early to say who, if anyone, should be fired. It definitely warrants an investigation though.

calfanz;406671 said:

---

Kelly is the Captain in Charge (AKA CMFIC)

as such he is responsible for this negligent death.

He should be fired sooner rather than later.

---

Just because you are the CMFIC, does not mean you should be fired if someone dies in your chain of command. For that matter, you could easily argue that the coach is not the CMFIC, the Pope is, this being a Catholic university (or God? - I'll not argue that case). Sometimes s**t happens. Industrial accidents happen all the time. Do you think the CEO gets fired every time someone at his company is killed accidentally? If the coach was negligent and contributed to the loss of life, there need to be consequences. The degree to which he may or may not have directly contributed to the death of this student should determine those consequences.

I think many of you are missing the real context of this situation, had any of you lived in or around the Chicagoland area you knew about this storm, it was very unusual because of the high winds (hurricane force winds in some areas), and they were reporting this as something that happens once every couple of decades. There were warnings all over the local news, etc. about this huge windy storm. This was not just a normal day where some big wind gust happened out of nowhere, it was not smart to be outside that day, and completely dumb to allow a kid 50 feel in the air. Someone made the decision "we are taping this practice" under obviously dangerous conditions.

25To20;406715 said:

---

Just because you are the CMFIC, does not mean you should be fired if someone dies in your chain of command. For that matter, you could easily argue that the coach is not the CMFIC, the Pope is, this being a Catholic university (or God? - I'll not argue that case). Sometimes s**t happens. Industrial accidents happen all the time. Do you think the CEO gets fired every time someone at his company is killed accidentally? If the coach was negligent and contributed to the loss of life, there need to be consequences. The degree to which he may or may not have directly contributed to the death of this student should determine those consequences.

---

Your joke is ill-advised and unfunny.

This was an interesting article written by someone who used to do the same job as Declan Sullivan at another FBS program.

http://deadspin.com/5676666/the-day-i-thought-id-die-on-a-scissor-lift-what-its-like-to-do-the-job-that-killed-declan-sullivan

The BIG question that I haven't seen answered yet....WHERE IS THE VIDEO?!!! If it disappears like the Michael Kennedy fatal accident video then Kelly, the AD, and everybody else should fall. The only reason for it to disappear or be unusable is if it documents poor decisions. Imagine if they review the video and the kid is yelling that its not safe and can he come down yet?

Does every major CFB team film its practices? Does Cal?

I'm surprised the coaches and players have enough time each week to break down the next opponents' game films, let alone our own practices. <cue Allen Iverson>

This one need not be over thought -

A 20 year old student died a completely avoidable death because the head coach was more concerned about improving his chance of winning by practicing outside during a once a decade wind storm than the personal safety of his staff. The fact that Kelly had the team continue practicing is just gratuitously inexcusable.

Calcoholic;406810 said:

---

I'm surprised the coaches and players have enough time each week to break down the next opponents' game films, let alone our own practices. <cue Allen Iverson>

---

Hell, many of us seem to and we don't get paid to.

This reminds of the Oklahoma State airplane crash incident where a player who didn't want to go fly a turbo prop (as he was already had a fear of flying) was forced to go by Eddie Sutton while the rest of the team flew a jet - and was one of the ones that died that day.

drunkoski;406654 said:

---

the only way i see it as justifiable is if the kid came to the coach, told him he didn't want to do it, and the coach told him to do it anyway.

---

Say what. You forgot the emoticon for SARCASM.

Some 20 year old who is probably happy to have the job of recording the practices is to tell the top man of ND Football (not the AD) that he doesn't want to do it. Right. There are lots and lots of FB groupies who are willing to do that.

The law does not put the burden on the employee but on the employer to provide a safe workplace for the workers. If there is material risk of harm it is up to the employer to spot it and to take the initiative to have the employee avoid the risk - "you don't have to do that". Otherwise the employee will be forced to undertake the risk for fear of losing his/her job.

Why is this. The employer controls the situation (or the method of avoiding the risk by doing such things as calling off practice). The employer will reap the profits of the employee's labor and the benefit of any risk that the employee runs.

USCdentist;406714 said:

---

It's a sad situation regardless of who's at fault. I think it is too early to say who, if anyone, should be fired. It definitely warrants an investigation though.

---

In the law there is such a concept as "Res Ipsa Loquitur" losely translated as "the thing/event speaks for itself."

Here you have several apparent facts:
1. High winds.
2. High stand.
3. young adult paid or unpaid by the FB team
4. young adult up on the high stand with permission.
5. Nobody in authority tells him to come down.
6. High Stand falls down because of the high winds
7. Young adult dies.

These facts would speak of negligence unless it can be proved:
1. The winds were not known to be high - or -
5. Some one told the kid that he did not have to go up or -
6. The high stand did not fall down because of the high winds but because of some other defect or causation.

It is not too early to discuss the situation. Maybe it is to early to hold the coach liable since he may be able to prove #1, #5 or #6. But discussion is justified - (like many lawsuits) for no reason other than so that other parties avoid similar situations and other needless deaths. (that is what I see as the benefit of tort lawyers - to have others avoid the same events.)

KoreAmBear;406821 said:

---

This reminds of the Oklahoma State airplane crash incident where a player who didn't want to go fly a turbo prop (as he was already had a fear of flying) was forced to go by Eddie Sutton while the rest of the team flew a jet - and was one of the ones that died that day.

---

I remember that because OSU was flying out home from playing Colorado. It is very different because flying is done by a professional pilot who is responsible for choosing whether the plane and conditions are safe. The prop plane in the crash (King Air) has an excellent safety record and in itself is not any more dangerous than a jet (and of course driving). I'm sure the crash haunts everyone on the other two planes because it was a form of 'roulette' on which plane they were on. But the thing with travel is that chartering a bus (or,as many non-revenue sports do, just taking a 15 passenger van) is probably more dangerous and as dependant on the skill of the driver as flying is on the pilot.

That incident did change how many of the Big 12 school chose to get to away games -at the time, donated time on private planes was pretty standard which meant little university oversight on the maintenance. Bit there wasn't anything negligent by Coach Sutton on making someone (there were 10 passengers) travel on a prop plane as opposed to a jet. There could have been a failure on one of the jets just as easily.

That is completely different from someone being up in a precarious postion when they didn't have to be..... and the university and lift procedures deemed it as completely unsafe.

Here is another story from a college football video assistant who films practice from a hydraulic scissor lift:

http://college-football-blog.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/25536064

Quote:

---

Is there ever a time when the team is practicing outside and the video assistants don't go up in one of the lifts out of safety concerns?

Generally, if the team is practicing outside, there is an expectation that it will be filmed outside. There has been only one time that the student crew was summoned to the ground, and that came from the video director.

Why was that?

A thunderstorm was moving into the area, and being 50+ feet in the air in a metal lift, for lack of a better term, scares the crap out of you when lightning is striking around you.

How did the coaches react to you coming down? Did the practice stay outside or move in?

They were not pleased at all, and "requested" that we get back in the air as soon as we could. There's a bit of an intimidation factor there.

Is that consistent with how you're treated by coaches (high expectations, etc.)?

It's one of those jobs where they don't care til something goes wrong.

---

25To20;406715 said:

---

For that matter, you could easily argue that the coach is not the CMFIC, the Pope is, this being a Catholic university (or God? - I'll not argue that case).

---

Catholic bashing aside, it is worth noting this particular university has a different mission than most others. I think that comes into play because the discussion of whether or not ND should fire Kelly has to be about more than just Kelly's alleged legal negligence.

ColoradoBear1;406840 said:

---

I remember that because OSU was flying out home from playing Colorado. It is very different because flying is done by a professional pilot who is responsible for choosing whether the plane and conditions are safe. The prop plane in the crash (King Air) has an excellent safety record and in itself is not any more dangerous than a jet (and of course driving). I'm sure the crash haunts everyone on the other two planes because it was a form of 'roulette' on which plane they were on. But the thing with travel is that chartering a bus (or,as many non-revenue sports do, just taking a 15 passenger van) is probably more dangerous and as dependant on the skill of the driver as flying is on the pilot.

That incident did change how many of the Big 12 school chose to get to away games -at the time, donated time on private planes was pretty standard which meant little university oversight on the maintenance. Bit there wasn't anything negligent by Coach Sutton on making someone (there were 10 passengers) travel on a prop plane as opposed to a jet. There could have been a failure on one of the jets just as easily.

That is completely different from someone being up in a precarious postion when they didn't have to be..... and the university and lift procedures deemed it as completely unsafe.

---

Good summary. Yes, it is different. But as I recall the story, the player seemed to beg Coach Sutton not to be relegated to the turbo prop but Sutton wanted the radio guy with them in the jet. And not that this is completely relevant, but I have found Sutton not to be a man of the highest character -- couple of investigations (one that set UK back to the dark ages for a few years), and even that self-serving stunt with USF where he tried to get to some kind of victory plateau.

this is probably a stupid question, but:

why do you even need a kid on a forklift to videotape practices? There's no cost-efficient way to shoot a camera 50 feet in the air without human supervision? (And this is Notre Dame, where cost is presumably not really a factor anyway.) Sounds like a project an EECS major can bang out in a couple months.

25To20;406715 said:

---

Just because you are the CMFIC, does not mean you should be fired if someone dies in your chain of command. For that matter, you could easily argue that the coach is not the CMFIC, the Pope is, this being a Catholic university (or God? - I'll not argue that case). Sometimes s**t happens. Industrial accidents happen all the time. Do you think the CEO gets fired every time someone at his company is killed accidentally? If the coach was negligent and contributed to the loss of life, there need to be consequences. The degree to which he may or may not have directly contributed to the death of this student should determine those consequences.

---

This "argument" is making you look very, very foolish. Pretty bad effort here!!

In this area of the country there was much discussion in many programs about where to hold practice because of the DANGEROUS WEATHER. Some programs that week, INCLUDING NOTRE DAME, held practice inside because of the DANGEROUS WEATHER. Do you not think that people in authority like the head coach were a part of discussions about what to do outside that day?

Yes the head coach is a busy man, but to think that he is not controlling everything that goes on that day in that program is having your head in the sand. Coaches are authoritarians who like to have every detail to their liking down to the very smallest nit-pick type of thing.

In my humble opinion Kelly knew darn well the guy was up there filming because Kelly wanted to later review tape of that practice just like he does every day!! He is responsible!!!

tequila4kapp;406875 said:

---

Catholic bashing aside, it is worth noting this particular university has a different mission than most others. I think that comes into play because the discussion of whether or not ND should fire Kelly has to be about more than just Kelly's alleged legal negligence.

---

Why would it be any different than if it happened at Southern Methodist University?

But because they practice in Memorial, there are several vantage points they can use without resorting to the use of cranes.

There was a practice a few years ago where it was dark and overcast, and all of a sudden it started raining very hard, there was thunder (rare for this area) and a flash of lightning. Tedford ordered everybody off the field and they went into meetings. The amount of productive work they could have gotten in had they carried on relative to the risk involved wasn't worth it.