Posted on 11/04/2006 4:21:46 AM PST by T-Bird45
The South County Raptors, a scrappy football team made up of 12- to 14-year-old boys from southern Fairfax County, were supposed to meet the Herndon Hornets today in the first round of the county playoffs.
Instead, the Raptors are at home, their season over with no possibility of a championship after a league commissioner fired the head coach and the assistant coach this week. Their offense? They moved the commissioner's son from defense to offense for the final game of the season last Saturday, an overtime win that put the Raptors in the postseason.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So you also believe that it was a coincidence that the coaches were abiding by the conditions of the e-mail, every game, all season long, even though they had the authority not to?
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that you're right: i.e. that the father is telling the truth, and that the coaches DID agree, in the telephone call, to play johnny on every down on defense, then in the last game broke their word. I agree with you that doing nothing would send a message that it's OK to break your word. Question, though: is there something else the father could have done? Could he have waited until the end of the season, then fired the coaches? Could he have removed his son from the team? Was the entire team aware of the consequences, i.e. that the coaches would be fired if they disobeyed dad? Does it change your view if the rest of the team, and the parents, were unaware of this agreement and the consequences?
There's another issue here, too: what happens if the kid gets hurt? Are the coaches still supposed to play him on "every down"? What happens if their offense commits a turnover (fumble, interception), the other team recovers and now is advancing the other way. Are the coaches in trouble because johnny isn't in on the play, given that the offense is now the defense? lol
We've been down this road already. I gave you several plausible reasons why the change occurred, which you summarily dismissed. That's why I'm of the opinion you're simply here to argue the contrary viewpoint.
how do you fire him ? he OWNS the league ;)
putz
Excellent poem!
See this link: http://www.fcyfl.org/Contacts.asp?snid=9503478&org=FCYFL.ORG
Mr. Hinkle is far from the only commissioner in the league. It looks like they're responsible for specific geographic areas.
Also, see the listings for league chairman Mark Meana Chairman@fcyfl.org
I'm wondering if Commissioner Hinkle overstepped his authority.
lol now you have me going lol.
What about when the other team has fourth down, and is in either field goal or punt formation? Is johnny supposed to be playing? Is it defense, or is it "special teams"? What happens if it's a FAKE? Are the coaches in trouble if they kept johnny out, because he's not on special teams? lol
obviously, "overstepping" his authority would be determined by the by-laws of the league, but for anyone to write such a stupid, threatening email, and consider the league all about him and his kid is just vulgar. The long-term repercussions of this for him and his son will not be pretty.
Why? Fire the coaches, get two more, and continue the season. Life goes on.
"is there something else the father could have done?"
I'm sure.
But consider this. The guy's mother dies. He goes out of town for the funeral, missing his son's game. While he's away, the coaches don't play his son on defense.
Now he's thinking, "WTF? Why did you guys do that?" He probably wants to brag to the high school or the college that his son "never missed one second of one game" playing defense. Now look what happened.
So he's upset. I would be too.
"Was the entire team aware of the consequences?"
Probably not. But the coaches were, and they chose to violate the specific conditions outlined in the e-mail. Now, in their defense, they probably thought they wouldn't be fired, considering the standing of the team. They thought wrong.
So now they throw themselves on the mercy of the liberal press, crying that there "was a misunderstanding" and looking for public pressure to change things. As much as I don't like the commissioner for his heavy-handed e-mail, I'm liking the coaches less for their poor-me, crybaby antics. The time to stand up to this clown was at the beginning of the season.
Sorry. Yes, you did. I had you confused with others who believe the same as you.
So the petty bastard broke up the team in retaliation. He's an ass.
Performance art, or just garden variety trolling?
Standard troll behavior: find a position sure to fire up the posters, use a logical fallacy to argue that position, and sit back and enjoy.
The problem is that, so long as you accept the premise of the logical fallacy (which is the either-or fallacy in this case, with a dollop of oversimplification thrown in for flavor) you have fed the troll. For example, would you agree that kids should be taught to respect the law? O.K., the government of Germany passes a law that says you have to turn in for execution every Jew you know. Are you going to teach your children not to obey the law (how shameful!)?
First, ignoring the commisioner teaches children nothing about "rules," because the commisioner doesn't have the authority to make that rule. The commisioner may have the authority to fire a coach, but that doesn't equal authority to make rules on coaches' behavior (hence the investigation now). Your boss may have the authority to fire you as well, but do they have the authority to make sex with them a condition of your employment? That's called extortion (as the threat is based on abuse of power, not clearly delineated use of power).
But all this is irrelevant, because a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I want my child to understand when rules should be broken (i.e., when they are invalid or unjust), not make them slavish followers of rules or total anarchists. Arguing this under fallacious terms isn't going to do anything other than amuse a troll or two...
I agree. Life is too short to deal with this kind of thing.
After reading your posts, I believe that is something you would do.
Since he is a defensive end, I see no reason for him not to play in fourth down situations.
"Scott does not sit out on defense -- ever," the commissioner, Dan Hinkle, had warned the head coach, James Owens, in an e-mail sent before the season began about how he should play Hinkle's son."
I don't see a lot of wiggle room in that e-mail. The "ever" is the tipoff.
He did? I missed that. Can you please point out where he did that?
It looks to be simply arguing from a purely authoritarian position. Establishing that the Commissioner had the authority to fire the coaches should be the end of it - that's all you need to know.
Don't be pedantic. He fired the coaches; that broke up the team.
Of course the commissioner had the authority to act like petty, truculent ass. The proof is that he did so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.