there is a kind of a common sense antenna that goes up with both these situations that i mean it's tragic what happened here but football  was that the coach was having the gymnastics team try a new stunt as it was called but no one had ever been injured up into the points that he the young lady who was thrown up in the air  because mostly he says that if the student is exhibiting concussion like symptoms he's supposed to take it out right and not put back in and then we have the fact issue of whether or not the student was exhibiting those symptoms or not s be very specific and context specific in defining the right at issue right absolutely and l r says based upon prenup number twenty eleven precedence that the specific ri issue there is an individual's right not to be removed from a safe environment and placed into one word it's clear that harm is likely to occur particularly when the individual may do to use or other factors that doesn't just cover only kindergart dangerous and the parents here signed basically a waiver saying we know concussions can happen and this is inherently dangerous and it's ok for her kid to do that so nobody is abandoning this child and you know in a dangerous situation that maybe the adult in l r could appreciate but the child a police in need could appreciate but the drunk lady couldn't he everybody understands what's going on if if in the case there was only a single hit which is a theory that the coach is testifying to is his version of the facts i think would be very difficult for the pla  so for this claim it involved more than just but there were these this isn't like other cases where we're in these other cases whether they be found and i and kind of these issues overlap but the behavior didn't shock the conscience when you other cases where they didn't chalk conscience there were incidents where the coach was told the person had a concussion that the person was suffering from headaches but you shouldn't put him back in that that they were all these other factors no he there was no evidence that he was subjectively aware that sheldon had suffered a concussion at that point and no one had told him and we don't know whether he had or not but he had had had a hit that was serious enough to label it a stinger  counselor knew that the child had had written a suicide note that he could possibly be suicidal but determined made a judgment call but it wasn't and that was not shocking to the conscience of his behavior that was not shocking to the conscience  so we don't want to wheelchair we raise that a very serious serious issue and we also want to make sure that the court understands that in previous cases the third the third circuit has talked about that the sho that that standard that the supreme court has set and that standard that the record applied and i don't believe that there are going to be there is going to be any evidence on this record that a coach ever said that in this one's in the position of a police officer for example having to respond to a life or death situation it is very important what could be known to the official in this case the record is replete with eyewitnesses who had the same access to the concussions were all cases where the concussion was suffered weeks beforehand the parent had called the coach and said that the kid has been cleared to go back to practicing and then the kid was worried about it and the co said you know come on get back out there your parents i mean we're fine but none of those cases a situation where after a serious injury takes place it's the coach on the spot on his own says you know get back after those cases are all significant period of time c