Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 87

Thread: Some questions on this ND tragedy

  1. #31
    Blowing away bad memories Redsfan320's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oxford, OH
    Posts
    2,283

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Obviously, there are different personal views here, but I know we have a couple lawyers here so- legally- is ND liable?

    320
    I'd rather listen to Kelch read the phone book than suffer through Thom Brennaman's attempt to make every instance on the field the most important event since the discovery of manned space flight. -westofyou

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner View Post
    If we don't think the leader should take responsibility or think things through, why is he out there? Why do we need a football coach? Just let the footbal program run itself, because we all should take personal responsibility for our actions.

    What I see in your argument is the blame game that we have been seeing lately, which is it's the victim's fault.

    Here's what I ask of you: If it is so obvious that this employee should have known not to go up there, don't you think that it should have been equally as obvious to the employer? Why should the employee be put in a situation to speak up for himself?

    As an employer I don't ask my employees to do things that could put their lives in peril. And if my 20 year old employee should know better, I should know better than to ask him to do something. I'm the leader. I'm 42 years old.

    I would be personally and professionally embarrassed and ashamed if this happened under my watch, and I can't imagine sharing the blame with anybody else but me.

    I understand that you are saying they both are to blame here, but seriously a 50 year old man shouldn't be saying, "I told him to go up there, but this 20 year old student should have known better."

    The argument you seem to be making is that this was so obvious that only the 20 year old should have seen it.

    But you know, there are football games to be won here, which is always going to trump every single thing in life.
    You're confusing blame with personal responsibility. The problem is we've completely, as a society, attempted to remove accountability of our own actions away from people.

    'Victims' sometimes are victims because of poor choices. Doing things that knowingly put themselves in harm's way. Surely, your parents taught you to make smart decisions and not do things you know could have unsafe repercussions, yes?

    If I walk across an unsafe passenger bridge that I know is very unstable, aren't I just as guilty as the owner of the bridge that let it be unsafe? I'm not trying to 'blame' the victims as much as get back to the way we used to think as a society that if we would make smart choices, and listen to our common sense, we'd often avoid tragedy.

    I'm not saying Brian Kelly didn't make a mistake. But the truth is, he's running a program in which he's got well over 120-150 different people to think about, to account for. It's likely that he didn't specifically send the kid up there as much as he probably wasn't thinking about the fact the kid was up there. After all, the video people going up into the tower is a repetitive thing that is done without specific instruction during every single practice. We've seen that Jim Tressel thought about it, but it doesn't mean every single coach may have had that on their minds at the time. Ultimately, in the court of law, it may not dismiss the culpability, but it's also not fair to center sole (emphasis) blame on 'the leader' because one of 150 people slipped through the cracks.

    My point is, Brian Kelly has to think about 150 people. Declan Sullivan had to think about one person. We know the little voice in Declan's head was talking and yelling out that he was in an unsafe situation. It's absolutely not unreasonable to hope that a person responsible for their own and only their own actions would exercise good judgment and call the situation to someone's attention. An employer has some responsibility for the safety of their employees. There's no question about that. But we have responsibility for the safety of ourselves too. To try and take that aspect out of the equation is basically saying who cares if we make poor decisions? It's someone else's fault.

    It's not blaming the victim. It's called personal accountability. It's consequences of our actions. We're taught it, or so I thought, at a young age. Remember your mom telling you not to touch the stove or you'll burn your fingers? Consider that a metaphor for life. Touch a burning stove and don't be surprised if you burn your finger.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  4. #33
    Yay!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    7,437

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Brutus - I think you have a fair point, but I would also add that darn near everyone who has ever worked in an industrial, agricultural, or construction setting has put themselves in a situation which violated OSHA standards, individual company rules, common sense, and all of the above, due to pressure from employers or just to "get the job done."

    Unfortunately, it's the way some people are wired.

    Below is video of the 1999 crane disaster at Miller Park in Milwaukee. What doesn't often get told in the Miller Park story is that a crew of operators and laborers had refused to begin work that day due to the windy conditions. One of the "bosses" dismissed them from the job and found a crew that would do the job in those conditions, even though they violated the crane manufacturers specifications for operating. (Remember that this project was already way behind schedule and over budget at this point.) And 3 construction workers lost their lives because of it.

    If that crane hadn't failed, nothing would have ever been known about the situation. It happens everyday in dangerous work settings, very sadly.

    YouTube - Crane Accident Kills 3 at Miller Park
    When all is said and done more is said than done.

  5. #34
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by dabvu2498 View Post
    Brutus - I think you have a fair point, but I would also add that darn near everyone who has ever worked in an industrial, agricultural, or construction setting has put themselves in a situation which violated OSHA standards, individual company rules, common sense, and all of the above, due to pressure from employers or just to "get the job done."

    Unfortunately, it's the way some people are wired.

    Below is video of the 1999 crane disaster at Miller Park in Milwaukee. What doesn't often get told in the Miller Park story is that a crew of operators and laborers had refused to begin work that day due to the windy conditions. One of the "bosses" dismissed them from the job and found a crew that would do the job in those conditions, even though they violated the crane manufacturers specifications for operating. (Remember that this project was already way behind schedule and over budget at this point.) And 3 construction workers lost their lives because of it.

    If that crane hadn't failed, nothing would have ever been known about the situation. It happens everyday in dangerous work settings, very sadly.

    YouTube - Crane Accident Kills 3 at Miller Park
    Well, I say kudos to the ones that wouldn't do something they knew was unsafe, even if it meant risking their jobs. That's kind of my point: it's terribly unfortunate (even negligent) that the employers terminated their employment because they wouldn't break the rules. Heck, that's the point where I do completely blame an employer if they're willing to force people to do something unsafe. But you know what? Those people that lost their jobs... because they listened to their common sense, they saved their own lives. I wish the new people had done the same.

    I see what you're saying... and I don't at all disagree. We've all done it one time or another. We've sacrificed common sense in the name of production. I know it happens a lot. But if we do it, we still can't ultimately be shocked if something goes wrong.

    I guess the point I'm making is that in this case, Sullivan could have at least raised the issue. Perhaps he did, though it doesn't seem that way. If he brings it to the attention of Kelly prior to going up there, one of a few things happen: he gets fired, he gets told to go up there anyhow or maybe they realize the danger and tell him he doesn't have to go up there.

    If he does that, and he gets fired, he loses his job, but spares his life. If it were a paying job, it would, IMHO, open up a wrongful termination. If he is forced to go up anyhow, I would hope he chooses safety over the job, but if he doesn't, I say shame on Kelly for putting him in that spot. But more likely, perhaps ND errs on the side of caution and he doesn't have to go up there. Then we're not talking about this.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  6. #35
    Yay!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    7,437

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    I agree with you for the most part, Brutus.

    But as an employer, you are responsible for those working under you at all times. And Lord knows, you can't account for common sense when taking their well-being into consideration.
    When all is said and done more is said than done.

  7. #36
    Member redsfandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,597

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by dabvu2498 View Post
    Brutus - I think you have a fair point, but I would also add that darn near everyone who has ever worked in an industrial, agricultural, or construction setting has put themselves in a situation which violated OSHA standards, individual company rules, common sense, and all of the above, due to pressure from employers or just to "get the job done."

    Unfortunately, it's the way some people are wired.

    Below is video of the 1999 crane disaster at Miller Park in Milwaukee. ...
    Yep, bending the rules of safety happens all the time unfortunately. And man, that video is ugly to watch.
    Quote Originally Posted by dabvu2498 View Post
    I agree with you for the most part, Brutus.

    But as an employer, you are responsible for those working under you at all times. And Lord knows, you can't account for common sense when taking their well-being into consideration.
    Gotta have that legal liability. It's a shame but without accidents alot of these rules wouldn't exist.
    "Now that's a real shame when folks be throwin' away a perfectly good white boy like that."

  8. #37
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    It's not blaming the victim. It's called personal accountability. It's consequences of our actions. We're taught it, or so I thought, at a young age. Remember your mom telling you not to touch the stove or you'll burn your fingers? Consider that a metaphor for life. Touch a burning stove and don't be surprised if you burn your finger.
    And where is Brian Kelly's personal accountability? You've made just about every excuse imaginable for the guy. He's too busy, too many people to watch over. How about this: How about if you have so many people to watch over that you can't account for safety, then you need to get some help, don't you? Again, the personal responsibiity crowd never sees it from any other side than to place it on the victim.

    Your ananlogy of mom telling not to touch a stove is a little different here, in fact it almost gives credence to the other side. If a mom tells her child to touch a burning stove, is it the fault of the kid who touches it? Or, if the kid realizes that it's dangerous, isn't the mom still an idiot?

    Had Brian Kelly (or whoever was in charge of this guy) told him not to go up there, he wouldn't have.

    That in'ts what happened: they told him to go up there.

    Here's the bottom line: whether this kid realized it or not, it was a stupid and dangerous request to ask somebody to climb up there in those conditions. If the kid refuses or if he goes, they still asked- they still tried to get their football practice filmed by someone on a tower in 50 plus mph winds.

    The request should never have been made, and if it isnt, the kid is alive. So for me, sorry, the responsibility rests with the university.

    We can't on one hand say that the student should have known better, but the person who asked him to go up there should not have known better. That makes no sense.

    I dont want to live in a world where the workers have to trust themselves to determine safe working conditions that are constructed by somebody else.

    "Hey, I'll pay you $8.00 an hour to work on that power line." "Is it grounded?"
    "I dunno, that's your job to figure out, youre the one stupid enough to go up there..."

    There's something really wrong with that scenario, don't you think?
    Last edited by Dom Heffner; 10-30-2010 at 06:45 PM.

  9. #38
    Bread Gloves Razor Shines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    6,316

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    I don't think anyone is giving Kelly a pass. Is the ND staff at fault for not taking the decision out of the kid's hands? Absolutely, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. At the same time the kid shouldn't have gone up there, he knew it was dangerous and he should have raised his concerns with his immediate supervisor. He clearly knew how dangerous it was and should have realized his life was worth risking his job, not the other way around. In my mind that doesn't take the blame away from ND, but the kid still should have said something.


    EDIT: Now if the kid did raise his concern and they still told him to go up there, then that's really bad. Most likely he just went up the tower without being told because that's what he does everyday. Yes, someone at ND should have been thinking enough to stop him from going up there, clearly Tressell was thinking about it.
    Last edited by Razor Shines; 10-30-2010 at 06:44 PM.

  10. #39
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    I guess I view my job as an employer very differently.

    I wouldn't ask one of my female employees to work late at night at our office by herself.

    If I did, however, and something happened to her, I would think it would be pretty low of me to say to her family, "Well she must have thought it was safe because she agreed to do it.."

    When I look at accountability and responsibility, I look at the employer. Because here's why: My employees look at me as the one who gives them raises, who does performance evaluations, references, letters of recommendation, who basically gives them their livelihood or can help them in their future, especially our younger ones.

    When I ask them to do something, all those things are in the back of their mind, becuase I can hold all of those things over their head, and they dont want the one time they say no to me to be the one thing that I remember about them.

    I'm not going to ask somebody to do something that might endanger them, especially since they might just say yes to it because they are worried what I might do if they say no. That's an awful position to put someone in. And if something does go wrong, it is my fault for putting them in that dilemma.

    I do get what Brutus is saying here, but truthfully this is 100% the fault of the university.

    You don't ask somebody to do that. You just don't.

    As well- we have an employer who has had these practices filmed for years, and couldn't that student infer that hey, these guys probably know better than he does what is safe?
    Last edited by Dom Heffner; 10-30-2010 at 07:03 PM.

  11. #40
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner View Post
    I guess I view my job as an employer very differently.

    I wouldn't ask one of my female employees to work late at night at our office by herself.

    If I did, however, and something happened to her, I would think it would be pretty low of me to say to her family, "Well she must have thought it was safe because she agreed to do it.."

    When I look at accountability and responsibility, I look at the employer. Because here's why: My employees look at me as the one who gives them raises, who does performance evaluations, references, letters of recommendation, who basically gives them their livelihood or can help them in their future, especially our younger ones.

    When I ask them to do something, all those things are in the back of their mind, becuase I can hold all of those things over their head, and they dont want the one time they say no to me to be the one thing that I remember about them.

    I do get what Brutus is saying here, but truthfully this is 99% the fault of the university.

    You don't ask somebody to do that. You just don't.
    You're hiring people you think are trustworthy, make good decisions and are knowledgeable about safety, do you not? And if something is amiss, wouldn't you expect them to tell you about it?

    To me, it's almost like you are expecting your employees to be ignorant of safety hazards. On the contrary, I imagine as an employer you raise awareness of safety and would hope and expect your people to use such judgment. Since you're cognizant of safety standards, wouldn't you expect them to know if there's a problem and alert you of it?

    It's a two-way street. The employer is responsible for providing the resources for a safe work environment, and making the bottom line decisions when safety is an issue. But the employees are expected to be knowledgeable, trustworthy and good decision-makers. If you don't expect your people to raise safety issues, since you're human and not going to catch everything yourself, you've failed as an employer just as much as by not catching it to begin with.

    I'm sorry, but a business is about people working together to get something done. It's not a very smart (safe) business model to expect any employer to be perfect in making safe decisions for the workers. You've got to have all workers able to be trained properly to identify and point out safety concerns. If a company is built on only the managers being able to spot safety problems, well that's not a very safe company to work for. I'd much rather work for a company that raises awareness but wants their people coming to them when something isn't caught. Two sets of eyes are better than one. Four sets of eyes are better than two.

    As I said from the beginning... I'm not saying Notre Dame, as an institution, has no blame in their ultimate decision (or rather indecision) to spot this safety issue. Contrary to your earlier comment, "You've made just about every excuse imaginable for the guy," this has nothing to do with making excuses for him. This has everything to do with asking why individuals can't have any accountability for their own choices. One of my favorite sayings in the world: "work smart not hard."

    The best employees are not the ones that do what they're told to do. They're the ones that can think for themselves and exercise their best judgment, use their common sense and work with (not for) their employers to get the job done as best and safely as they can.

    Do you or do you not want your people coming to you with safety concerns. I would hope that you do... because in my honest opinion, it's actually much more dangerous a work environment if you don't. It's far more worse to run any kind of business that expects only a few people to catch all hazards.

    You provide the work environment and are responsible to fix the problems. But the people you hire to work should also be trained to spot problems and come to you with them. Correct?
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  12. #41
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner View Post
    And where is Brian Kelly's personal accountability? You've made just about every excuse imaginable for the guy. He's too busy, too many people to watch over. How about this: How about if you have so many people to watch over that you can't account for safety, then you need to get some help, don't you? Again, the personal responsibiity crowd never sees it from any other side than to place it on the victim.

    Your ananlogy of mom telling not to touch a stove is a little different here, in fact it almost gives credence to the other side. If a mom tells her child to touch a burning stove, is it the fault of the kid who touches it? Or, if the kid realizes that it's dangerous, isn't the mom still an idiot?

    Had Brian Kelly (or whoever was in charge of this guy) told him not to go up there, he wouldn't have.

    That in'ts what happened: they told him to go up there.

    Here's the bottom line: whether this kid realized it or not, it was a stupid and dangerous request to ask somebody to climb up there in those conditions. If the kid refuses or if he goes, they still asked- they still tried to get their football practice filmed by someone on a tower in 50 plus mph winds.

    The request should never have been made, and if it isnt, the kid is alive. So for me, sorry, the responsibility rests with the university.

    We can't on one hand say that the student should have known better, but the person who asked him to go up there should not have known better. That makes no sense.

    I dont want to live in a world where the workers have to trust themselves to determine safe working conditions that are constructed by somebody else.

    "Hey, I'll pay you $8.00 an hour to work on that power line." "Is it grounded?"
    "I dunno, that's your job to figure out, youre the one stupid enough to go up there..."

    There's something really wrong with that scenario, don't you think?
    But that's not really the case here.

    It's not like Kelly told him to go up there knowing there were 50 MPH winds. The issue is that Kelly decided to have practice, and since no one thought to say differently, everyone went about their daily routine as normal. No one told Sullivan to go up there. No one had to because Sullivan does it every day. That's the routine.

    If Kelly had told Sullivan to go up there, specifically after knowing about the safety risks, then I would feel much more strongly about that decision. But that's not the case... the problem is that no one thought of the issue of the winds knocking down the tower.

    That's why I'm asking why Sullivan (or anyone in that situation) can't bring the matter to the attention of their superiors. The fact of the matter is that an employer can't always know of every danger facing their people. Even the best employers in the world need the feedback of their people to make better decisions and provide better resources. Without that expectation of feedback, they're not always going to have all of the information--and certainly not the best information.

    What good are military leaders that make decisions for their units in the heat of battle without the feedback of the people on the ground? That's why they have intelligence people reporting back. Because they need to hear from people doing the jobs.

    Same thing here. No one told Sullivan to go up there because it was already implied. It was business as usual. Sullivan knew he was in a bind... and all he had to do was raise awareness, and perhaps his employer could have made a much more informed decision.

    Ultimately, this falls back at least someone on Notre Dame. That's not being denied. But safety in a workplace also somewhat relies on properly trained individuals making smart decisions and communicating with their employers.

    I can't see how, as someone that operates a business, you would deny that.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  13. #42
    Yay!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    7,437

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    It's not like Kelly told him to go up there knowing there were 50 MPH winds. The issue is that Kelly decided to have practice, and since no one thought to say differently, everyone went about their daily routine as normal. No one told Sullivan to go up there. No one had to because Sullivan does it every day. That's the routine.

    If Kelly had told Sullivan to go up there, specifically after knowing about the safety risks, then I would feel much more strongly about that decision. But that's not the case... the problem is that no one thought of the issue of the winds knocking down the tower.
    Here's the problem with that... As an employer/supervisor, rule of thumb is "if you see it or know it is happening, you own it."

    In other words, even if the ND staff didn't specifically say, "kid, get up in that man-lift or else," surely somebody there saw the kid up in the thing or was aware that those video assistants were still airborn that day.

    I agree entirely that as employers, we want people who will be aware of safety hazards and will do anything to avoid them. And further, will point them out to someone who can fix them. But as supervisors, we can not assume this is happening.

    I'll give you a for instance of a recent accident at a local steel mill here in town.

    Big box where scrap metal is stored. Needs emptied. Crane with a magnet attachment begins emptying. Scrap metal jammed in at the bottom of the box won't come loose with just the mag. Employee on the ground climbs in the scrap box. Jagged edge of metal through the bottom of his boot, ambulance, hospital, etc. etc. etc.

    Common sense tells most folks "hey, jumping in that scrap box is a foolish idea." But guess what? There was no written safety procedure saying not to hop in the scrap box. Common sense loses. So did several supervisors.

    Of course, the ND incident is even more galling because there were written procedures (manufacuters specs) saying not to use the lift with winds above whatever MPH. And people of authority knew those kids were up there and it happened.

    The part that will get really ugly, methinks, is that I'd bet Sullivan and the other kids that were using those lifts have minimal safety training in using them. They are pretty simple to operate and I'm betting they were shown how to raise and lower themselves and that's about it. If that's the case, ND is in a world of hurt.
    When all is said and done more is said than done.

  14. #43
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Kelly and Swarbrick may not have been at fault, but they're liable for what happened.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  15. #44
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    Quote Originally Posted by dabvu2498 View Post
    Here's the problem with that... As an employer/supervisor, rule of thumb is "if you see it or know it is happening, you own it."

    In other words, even if the ND staff didn't specifically say, "kid, get up in that man-lift or else," surely somebody there saw the kid up in the thing or was aware that those video assistants were still airborn that day.

    I agree entirely that as employers, we want people who will be aware of safety hazards and will do anything to avoid them. And further, will point them out to someone who can fix them. But as supervisors, we can not assume this is happening.

    I'll give you a for instance of a recent accident at a local steel mill here in town.

    Big box where scrap metal is stored. Needs emptied. Crane with a magnet attachment begins emptying. Scrap metal jammed in at the bottom of the box won't come loose with just the mag. Employee on the ground climbs in the scrap box. Jagged edge of metal through the bottom of his boot, ambulance, hospital, etc. etc. etc.

    Common sense tells most folks "hey, jumping in that scrap box is a foolish idea." But guess what? There was no written safety procedure saying not to hop in the scrap box. Common sense loses. So did several supervisors.

    Of course, the ND incident is even more galling because there were written procedures (manufacuters specs) saying not to use the lift with winds above whatever MPH. And people of authority knew those kids were up there and it happened.

    The part that will get really ugly, methinks, is that I'd bet Sullivan and the other kids that were using those lifts have minimal safety training in using them. They are pretty simple to operate and I'm betting they were shown how to raise and lower themselves and that's about it. If that's the case, ND is in a world of hurt.
    Well, these are very good points, but here's something where I think people are being too hard on Brian Kelly: he's a football coach, not a hydraulic tower operator and not a safety expert. Someone at Notre Dame ultimately has to be knowledgeable on the safety and operations of this device. That's a point you have made and I agree with it completely. Notre Dame as an institution had an obligation to make sure this device was operated properly and in the right situation. I can't and won't dispute that.

    But everyone is pointing fingers at Brian Kelly for this. He's got to be a part of it, but only a small part. He's not a tower expert. His job isn't to operate that thing and it wouldn't be negligent if he really didn't know the first thing about the kind of winds those things could withstand. Heck, I know a lot of football coaches at schools that use those things and they don't know the first thing about them.

    That's not to say Notre Dame shouldn't have someone around that did. Certainly. But everyone here is acting (after the fact mind you) that it's a no-brainer they should have known ahead of time. Why? Why should Brian Kelly have known that?

    I agree Notre Dame will be liable. And I'm not even saying they shouldn't be. But specific blame on any individuals is hard to come by. This seems like a safety hazard that fell through the cracks. My point all along is that the person most capable of knowing the risks, the one that was using that thing every day (Declan) didn't speak up. If he had, Kelly may have been more aware of something he didn't know much about.

    It's Notre Dame's job to have someone be aware of those risks. So please no one get the wrong idea. But everyone is dishing this out on Brian Kelly... when truth be told, I bet you if someone had raised this issue before the incident, no one here would have thought twice about expecting the head coach to be responsible for the operation of this device. It's easy to point fingers at Kelly specifically after the fact, but I feel there's some revisionist blame here.

    Unfortunately we can't go back and avoid this. But I'd rather we learn from it than point fingers. And that's why I think there's a responsibility of individuals to raise awareness when their own safety is at risk.

    It's a fact of life that not all dangers are going to be apparent to even the most vigilant employers. I just honestly feel that this is an accident that could have been prevented, but it's not fair to blame any one person for why it wasn't. And that's why I've reiterated that the person that knew the most about the risks should have at least spoken about them.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  16. #45
    Blowing away bad memories Redsfan320's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oxford, OH
    Posts
    2,283

    Re: Some questions on this ND tragedy

    I think people are being too hard on Brian Kelly: he's a football coach, not a hydraulic tower operator and not a safety expert. Someone at Notre Dame ultimately has to be knowledgeable on the safety and operations of this device.
    This. I'm still debating with myself where I stand with this whole thing, but people are saying "Brian Kelly." This sounds like a task that, if anyone on the football staff would have handled, it would've been Kelly's assistant coach's secretary's assistant.

    320
    I'd rather listen to Kelch read the phone book than suffer through Thom Brennaman's attempt to make every instance on the field the most important event since the discovery of manned space flight. -westofyou


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25