Coach Stam retired last year. Maybe he didn't have a MD, we didn't ask but we trusted him and he answered every question I asked. During most practices there were others there and a team Doctor. On game nites the same Dr and a lady Dr plus others were in attendace. When an oppposing player is hurt these folks would be on the field as soon as the opposing teams, including Coach Stam. Sorry I brought it up, this was about PRP.

 

And Thats all I'm gonna say about that.

Absolutely there are criminal charges that could potentially apply in a situation in which a coach abused his players and withheld water. Certainly wanton endangerment applies and, under the right circumstances, even involuntary manslaughter. I am in NO WAY implying that is what occurred in the PRP situation. I don't know any of the facts to make such an assertion and will await the law enforcement officials investigating that matter tell us if they think such a crime occurred. But, make no mistake, a coach's actions on the field could very easily have criminal - not just civil - ramifications.

 

 

Wanton endagerment.... That is a FAR FAR stretch. I you can find any case under these circumstances which sets a precedent for the courts I'd really like to see it.

Wanton endagerment.... That is a FAR FAR stretch. I you can find any case under these circumstances which sets a precedent for the courts I'd really like to see it.

 

Really?

 

Definition of 2nd degree wanton endangerment:

 

A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.

 

So a coach who continually runs players in a heat index rating close to the khsaa top limit, doesn't allow for sufficient water breaks, and tells players no water until they stop sweating, couldn't possibly apply here?

 

And, BTW, once again I feel compelled to state that I am NOT implying that is what occurred at PRP - only that there could very easily be a set of circumstances in which a case could be made for this charge.

 

No it's not.

 

And as to the other comment about small schools, if they want to have sports, particularly football, then they need to figure out how to fund it.

 

I don't disagree with you but I don't see it happening in the near future. Parents have got to be proactive. Talk to your kids about what goes on at practice or watch some if you can. Don't be a pain about it just try to know what goes on. As for hydrating before practice, schools should be giving football and soccer players a bottle of water or two the last hour of school to drink before practice. It is hard to properly hydrate at a water fountain in between classes.

Unless she's an ER/Trauma unit nurse, I doubt she's used to that type stress.

 

 

 

Where did you hear this?

 

If you think only ER/Trauma nurses are the only ones who work under such stressful conditions, then you dont know anything about nursing.

Really?

 

Definition of 2nd degree wanton endangerment:

 

A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.

 

So a coach who continually runs players in a heat index rating close to the khsaa top limit, doesn't allow for sufficient water breaks, and tells players no water until they stop sweating, couldn't possibly apply here? And, BTW, once again I feel compelled to state that I am NOT implying that is what occurred at PRP - only that there could very easily be a set of circumstances in which a case could be made for this charge.

 

My understanding is water wasn't allowed during sprints at the end of practice. Where did you come up with water being continually denied?

Really?

 

Definition of 2nd degree wanton endangerment:

 

A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.

 

So a coach who continually runs players in a heat index rating close to the khsaa top limit, doesn't allow for sufficient water breaks, and tells players no water until they stop sweating, couldn't possibly apply here?

 

And, BTW, once again I feel compelled to state that I am NOT implying that is what occurred at PRP - only that there could very easily be a set of circumstances in which a case could be made for this charge.

If the reports are correct it was 94 and KSHAA allows practice up to 104.

 

My understanding is water wasn't allowed during sprints at the end of practice. Where did you come up with water being continually denied?

 

I didn't. I tried to make that clear. I was simply trying to give an example of how a coach's actions could easily cross the line into criminal behavior and be subject to a charge of wanton endangerment. I have absolutely zero personal knowledge of the PRP situation.

If the reports are correct it was 94 and KSHAA allows practice up to 104.

 

I believe the temperature was 94. Not sure what the heat index was. The 104 reading you are referring to is the heat index (combination of temprature and humidity).

I believe the temperature was 94. Not sure what the heat index was. The 104 reading you are referring to is the heat index (combination of temprature and humidity).

 

The highest our heat index was at practice that day was 96.

Really?

 

Definition of 2nd degree wanton endangerment:

 

A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.

 

So a coach who continually runs players in a heat index rating close to the khsaa top limit, doesn't allow for sufficient water breaks, and tells players no water until they stop sweating, couldn't possibly apply here?

 

And, BTW, once again I feel compelled to state that I am NOT implying that is what occurred at PRP - only that there could very easily be a set of circumstances in which a case could be made for this charge.

 

Key word in your post is close to the KHSAA limit, not exceeding it. He was following the rules, and an accident happened. Following the rules IS NOT wanton endangerment. He was not acting dangerously, by following the rules and guidelines set forth by KHSAA.

 

I also question whether or not there may be some sort of translation issues with this quote.

 

My understanding is water wasn't allowed during sprints at the end of practice. Where did you come up with water being continually denied?

 

It is my understanding that the coach followed the letter of the law regarding water breaks, so leagally he may be okay. I question if he followed the spirit of the law. He and the staff need to recognize when things are happening outside the norm. My kid's coach does, but it's not football, and she is a trainer as well as a coach. There had to be signs before it reached critical mass. You don't get to that body temp in an instant, and you can't function properly so there had to be signs.

 

The heat index was 94 that day it was reported. Certainly not hot compared to last year, but evidently they were working very hard that day.

I believe the temperature was 94. Not sure what the heat index was. The 104 reading you are referring to is the heat index (combination of temprature and humidity).

The 104 is the heat index limit and I believe the heat index was 94.

Key word in your post is close to the KHSAA limit, not exceeding it. He was following the rules, and an accident happened. Following the rules IS NOT wanton endangerment. He was not acting dangerously, by following the rules and guidelines set forth by KHSAA.

 

Following rules/guidelines of a private or public company/organization do not determine potential criminal responsibility. Again . . . not saying anyone did or didn't follow rules, but you need to read the LAW regarding the elements of the CRIME of wanton endangerment.

 

For instance - and this is a far-fetched example - but a coach could hold a practice in 60 degree weather all day long and not violate any khssa heat index rule. However, if he requires his players to run 50 straight 100-yard sprints without a break and one of them suffers a severe injury, I assure you he could be forced to answer to potential criminal charges.

Following rules/guidelines of a private or public company/organization do not determine potential criminal responsibility. Again . . . not saying anyone did or didn't follow rules, but you need to read the LAW regarding the elements of the CRIME of wanton endangerment.

For instance - and this is a far-fetched example - but a coach could hold a practice in 60 degree weather all day long and not violate any khssa heat index rule. However, if he requires his players to run 50 straight 100-yard sprints without a break and one of them suffers a severe injury, I assure you he could be forced to answer to potential criminal charges.

 

I understand what you're saying, but where is the precedent. That's what our law is based off of. And unless you can find another case in the state of KY with similar circumstances, as a source of precedent then the next thing to do would be to look towards any governing body or program which regulates or restricts things such as this. It being a sport, which is played through KHSAA rules and regulations I would say that would play a big part as to whether or not charges of Wanton Endangerment can be brought forth.