In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Another player arrest under Kelly's watch.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
ND has now run the gambit from DUI, drug possession and now assaulting an officer.
Everyone wanted Kelly to transform ND into a SEC-type school. Well its happening, just off the field and not on it.
If you're going to run a renegade program and have kids of questionable character on the team, at least be good on the field.
Kelly continues to transform the players from upstanding citizens to more and more low rent commuter school players like he's used to coaching.
With each passing day Kelly drags ND football further down into the deep, dark, abyss.
This is a huge black eye for the program and the most serious offense a ND player has ever been charged with. And it came from the most well known player and face of the program, the starting quarterback.
If I'm Swarbrick I place Kelly on immediate administrative leave and promote Diaco to interim head coach.
Then I use this year to find the best possible head coach and hire him.
The jig is up for Kelly. Between the bumblings on the field, the player problems off the field, his questionable language during press conferences, the Sullivan tragedy, etc there is simply no way ND can retain Kelly in good conscious.
If I was a recruit's parent, I would have serious doubts about sending my son to ND. He likely would not be developed into a serious NFL prospect and would also be around a bunch of players of questionable character and general commuter school program.
Say what you want about the other coaches since Holtz, but none of them made ND look as low rent off the field and cheesy on the field (inane uniforms, Crazy Train, etc) as Kelly.
Truly an embarrassment to this once proud university and football program.
Do whats right Jack, Kelly must go....immediately!!!
5/3 9:17 AM | IP: Logged
A little rough on Kelly here from another board somewhere out in vapor land...and without justification IMO...
--- given these incidents are all alcohol related...and not theft, drugs, rape, gun related, etc.
(I find it truly amusing that we have booze sold everywhere, including by the state, but everyone gets all in a spit when someone comes in above zero tolerance...what a joke).
We have had these incidents before, but with 2nd string and lower players...
--- so the media cared less about running the story up the flagpole.
However, i will say Kelly seems to be dogged by this kind of stuff...on and off the field.
The only statement I agree with Is “Kelly. Between the bumbling's on the field.”
To be fair, we've seen alcohol and substance abuse issues with players from the programs of Weis and Brey as well. It might be the time for the university to make clear to its coaches that it wants to see this cleaned up.
Let's be serious here. I am not condoning what Rees, Carlobrese, and Floyd did, but these football players are ADULTS. They have the ability to make either the wrong or right decision. They MADE the choice. THEY should be responsible and own up to the consequences.
To bring you up to date (from a legal perspective) on the legal drinking age in the US...
--- the legal age is 21...set by the National Drinking Minimum Age Act of 1984 (or thereabouts).
In plain English, any player who is under 21 years of age is considered a juvenile by the court, not an ADULT, when it comes to consuming alcoholic beverages...
--- and is generally under the Zero Tolerance rule when driving.... which means > .08 and you will get a chance to see the judge.
Generally, a 6 pack puts someone around 200 lbs. at a blood alcohol level of >.10
However, if a player doesn't drive, many states allow the consumption of alcohol by individuals under 21 in "private" locations...
--- INDIANA DOES NOT ALLOW CONSUMPTION UNDER THE AGE OF 21 IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. (but Illinois does).
Personally, I know under age drinking is very common on campuses...and ND is no exception.
I know all of what you said. Isn't 18 considered an adult? The world I live in it is. I know you have to be 21 to drink.
18 is an adult that can't drink alcohol under the law. has to do with federal highway funding. Rees is not being charged in juvenile court for any of the charges
What a bunch of crap. Every football program in the nation has a few kids each year that get into trouble for alcohol or other incidents. You were probably a Boy Scout in college and never did anything wrong.
The fact that the drinking age is 21 in Indiana does NOT make a 20 year old a juvenile in the eyes of the law. Nice way to twist things, but the fact remains, Rees is an adult. He was also an 'underage' drinker, not a juvenile drinker. Where do you come up with some of this stuff?
Funny thing about this post is you are actually serious
Irish Oak in Chicago
We have set standards for the kids that we ourselves probably couldn't or wouldn't live up to at the same age. Is he a "RKG"? What the hell is that?
We latch on to these kids in Pop Warner and elevate them to exalted status by the time they are 17. Then when they act their age we throw them overboard.
I think Paul Hornung had it right years ago. ND has to decide what it wants out of its football program. It certainly wants the revenue it generates. If we want a bunch of oversized choir boys then let's dumb the schedule down, maybe join the Ivy League.
Try to offer up something other than your usual use of intellectual nouns such as "crap" ...to this discussion...
The question -- Is Rees (or someone under 21) a juvenile or adult when it comes to drinking alcoholic beverages?
This is exactly the same discussion we had last year with Floyd...with his first offense which was very similar..
--- the reality then and now is that if Rees were 21 or older he wouldn't have been charged....period.
Therefore, under this particular statute, (read it again) he is not considered an adult by the court.
If he is not considered by the court as an adult, he is therefore a juvenile (or someone under 21 years of age) and subject to the "zero tolerance" test.
Where or what court he is arrainged in is "irrelevant"....
While the voting age of 18 is often considered as reaching "adult" status, it pertains only to your voting rights....NOTHING ELSE.
--- for example, in other statutes, such as family support, New York mandates support until 23 years of age (maturity) if the individual is still living with one of the parents.
Rees is not an adult under this statute...period....get over it.
The issue of whether he did/didn't act like an "adult" (with maturity, common sense, knowledge of what it might mean, etc.) is a totally different issue.
You bring nonsense 6. Plain and simple. Your intent is only to incite the board.
The age of adulthood is 18. You can vote, die for your country, are legally emancipated to make adult decisions (meaning no parental signature required), drink in some states, marry, go to prison, or the electric chair. There are many other things too, but you are well aware of that. You also know 18 is a legal adult, but it doesn't suit your argument, which is poor.
Rees would have been arrested, no matter his age, if he had acted the way he did. That stance is BS. The fact that you take that stance, tells me your position isn't well thought out.
Rees is an adult in the eyes of the law. When he was arrested, he wasn't treated as a juvenile was he? NO! He went to big boy jail, and was treated like and adult. Had Rees been charged and convicted of that felony, do you think he was headed to a juvenile detention center? I feel safe in saying, no. He would have been dealing with adult consequences and penalties.
Also the court matters, the court has to be petitioned to try a juvenile in an adult court. Legally a juvenile is any person who commits a crime under the age of 18 (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/juvenile-crime.html).
Therefore, your position holds no water.
If you insist on bringing the this drivel to the board, at least pull your head out of your arse before you post. We would all appreciate it.
Semantics, semantics, semantics are not the issue here....in this situation the federal statute and the state's application of the statute, is all that matters in court, not anything else.
--- not your opinion, not mine, not some web site citation that defines an "adult" without the context of the statute in hand.
Therefore, the court will see him as "under age" (read: not an adult because if he was, we wouldn't be discussing this situation) within the "definitions" of the statute.
This situation has never been a felony...not even close...not even remotely close (which I said from hour #1...look it up)
--- it is a trivial misdemeanor, and it will be treated as such.
"Rees would have been arrested, no matter what his age..if he had acted the way he did...." (WHICH PRESUPPOSES AN ACTION)
--- sorry, you are wrong again. Wrong. Try to think this through for a change.
Rees is (now in this example) over 21...he drinks a six pack....11-15 blood level....whatever...who cares?...police enter the house due to a complaint of "noise".
--- the policeman thinks Rees is < 21 and asks for an ID....Rees finally finds it and gives it to him...the ID states he is > 21...he states he bought his beer for himself only...
Therefore, the policeman will not ask for a breath test, a sobriety check, do the eye exam, cite him or arrest him or harass him because IT ISN'T A MOVING VEHICULAR VIOLATION!
--- nor did Rees purchase said beer for any minor on the premises because he stated he did NOT....the police cannot presuppose he did so without substantial evidence.
Rees simply walks out on the porch...he doesn't make a public display of his alcoholic stupor...which might necessitate a citation in an extreme situation...but he doesn't.
--- therefore, no citation..NOTHING...period.
Rees can run away, skip away, whatever.
If the police run after him and chase him down, after knowing his is >21, etc., they better have very good, if not great, probable cause beyond seeing a can in his hand.
I didn't even read all that BS. I will tell you, I consulted with 2 Indiana licensed ATTORNEY friends before I posted what I did. They said you're talking out of the side of your neck.... meaning you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Instead of this back and forth BS, how about telling us what your lawyer friends said?
Did you happen to notice that a player named Mike Floyd went from troubled talented player that had a few brushes with the red and blue and Coach Kelly's guidance helped him to be a respected young man who went 13th in the NFL draft. As for the rest of your rant you lost me after the first paragraph.
Side note dont we root for a University STRONGLY associated with a man who was against casting stones at people. Tommy is a 19 year old kid lay off him. He made a mistake. He is a good kid who has had a few turnovers in life and in a GAME. You guys need to relax a bit.
Said pretty much what I posted. The law views Rees as an adult.
They don't know much about the law...
--- the statute rules....without question.
Well, since they're very successful attorneys, I'll definitely take their word over yours. You may want to try twisting things to suit whatever BS you've come up with this time, but it won't fly.
I'm done with the childish game you're playing too. Solid evidence says you are WRONG... AGAIN. Why not do your homework, and at least try to make some sense?
Coda, The point (or at least as I see it) that 6 is making is that if the police showed up at this party with the intent to "tone it down" and IF Rees was 21 (the legal age in Indiana) he would NOT have been arrested (at which point he allegedly took it to another level with his resistance). The police would simply have left the premises after giving a warning.
I appreciate your understanding, but you should go back to read his second post. It had to do what the law, and I was pointing out he was wrong. Then he wanted to change things to give hypothetical situations. Then he wants to change the meaning of the statutes to suit himself, and he's wrong again. Underage does not equal juvenile, or not an adult. Using his logic, anyone wanting to run for president, who is 33 years old, is a juvenile.
Your assumption he wouldn't have been arrested for drinking (IF he was 21), would be correct provided he didn't run like he did, assault PD after he got caught, or was not PI. Had those things not happened, he may very well have only gotten a warning.
I can fully understand him panicking, and trying to get away. He was worried about the coach finding out, and it hurting his chances next season. I get that. What I don't get, is his decision to fight after he was caught. That makes no sense at all to me.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Coda 23 months ago
If you understood the law, and the situation...you wouldn't ask "why his decision to fight"....
--- he was "apparently" run down, tackled from behind, and knocked to the ground. At which point he resisted (fight? NO!), and the policeman sprayed him (unnecessary force in this situation where the individual was so drunk he couldn't out run a clumsy policeman).
This "context" is why his so-called "offense", which you are so much in a dither-dither about, was immediately reduced to a misdemeanor....
--- in legal English, he did NOT precipitate the conflict with the policeman...the policeman precipitated the conflict. Do you understand the difference?
I really don't understand your (or anyone else's) judgmental position here, particularly when it is completely unwarranted.
This situation is a trivial misdemeanor...blown totally out of proportion ...I have now said this to you for the 5th time.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports