Posted on 11/04/2006 4:21:46 AM PST by T-Bird45
Dear old dad.
Since when did he let down the kids? He made a decision he considered in their best interest, and got fired for it. They had the choice to play under a new coach, but according to the article all refused.
Certainly the coach bears full responsibility for what happened.
Because of his position, the coach had the right to make the decision he did, but the commissioner seems to have been within his rights to fire him for it. Sounds fair enough. It's also fair that the commissioner will now be despised by many families in his community (and, with this a national story, by many people across the country), as he well deserves to be.
Whether or not one was broken, it would be fitting for any with the power to do so to fire the commissioner for his shameful behavior. Surely you would not oppose this, would you?
My kids aren't at the U13 level yet...so I'm sure I have a lot to forward to...unfortunately.
Where did I compare anyone to a Nazi? I simply provided a case to demonstrate that absolutes are invalid as arguments, as they are never, in fact, absolutes. Not even he provided a logical or reasoned argument to rebut the point...
Uh-oh...Paulsen's off his meds again...
CA....
Birds of a feather and all that.
BTW can you post a rule manual for this league which states that the Commissioner has veto power over starting lineups?
Thanks in advance.
L
You're right. Let's just say he put the kids in the position of having to choose between a new coach or foregoing the championships.
"He made a decision he considered in their best interest, and got fired for it."
Yes. Odd that he waited the entire season to do so, don't you think?
Was he hired? According to the article, it sounds as though he was self-appointed (or annointed).
Sure, if there are those in power who believe he exceeded his authority, then fire him. And you wouldn't then blame him if he takes his sponsorship money with him, would you?
You're preachin' to the choir, StAnLey. I'm a believer in rules and contracts. I thought that was obvious.
Which of the rules you cited were violated by the commissioner such that he should be fired for breaking them?
Got one that says he can't?
And I want my child to understand that if they believe the rules to be invalid or unjust, they should work to change those rules.
The point you're missing (or ignoring) is that the coaches accepted the commissioner's conditions. They coached the entire season under those conditions. Then they violated those conditions in the final game and were fired for it.
It's disingenuous of you to compare that to the Nazi's enforcing behavior under penalty of death or an employer extorting sex from an employee.
You believe the end justifies the means, and that's what you're teaching your children. Well, I don't. There will always be those who disagree with the rules -- they're not necessarily right and they don't get a pass just because they disagree.
Not only inappropriate, but rude, condescending, and manipulative. After receiving it, the coaches should have replied that they would not honor it.
But they didn't, and that's the point I'm trying to make here. The abided by that e-mail the entire season, violating it only in the last game for which they were fired.
Now, what point are YOU trying to make?
My bad. Sorry.
And what you are ignoring is that you cannot "accept" invalid conditions. An employer who listed your duties on the day you were hired as "typing, filing, sex, and doing my laundry" cannot then hold you to having sex if you do the filing and typing for the first few weeks (please try arguing that one in court!). Attaching invalid (i.e. commands outside of the authority of the hirer) requirements to valid ones does not somehow magically make the invalid ones valid.
The commisioner may have the power to hire and fire, but I've seen no indications that his formal power includes making playing decisions. That is a power traditionally reserved for coaches. The fact that he might misuse his power to fire a coach that didn't do what he wanted doesn't suddenly give him coaches' power. Try taking a local crack dealer to court because he didn't deliver the quantity he promised to you. Invalid contracts cannot be made valid simply because you adhere to some of the conditions (that's black letter law... and common sense).
Better luck next time...
They did. Hence:
"There was a phone call with Hinkle after that initial e-mail, and I thought we had an understanding on how we were going to coach the kids," said the fired assistant coach, Bill Burnham.
The fact that the kid may have helped them most on defense in earlier games does not signal acceptance of the conditions. Acceptance requires formal recognition of the conditions. Show me where they did that. They did the exact opposite...
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.