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 ...
Yep, and his son will end up the same way.
If this had happened in Southwestern PA, the commissioner would be receiving an "attitude adjustment" from many of the parents on the team.
I smell the makings of a major motion picture.
You keep saying "rule" when you probably should be saying "request." Certainly the coaches violated no established league rules.
If the coaches are to be believed (and I have no reason not to believe them), they thought Mr. Hinkle had agreed to let them decide what position his son would play. Throughout the season, they followed his wishes and play him on defense. For the last game of the season, they switched him to offense.
Mr. Hinkle could have responded several ways. He could have taken the coaches aside and expressed his displeasure. He could have fired the coaches after the season. He could have pulled his son from the team. Or he could have been sensible and done nothing.
Instead, Hinkle fired the coaches and effectively ended the team's season.
So tell me again why I should not consider Mr. Hinkle a jerk?
Wow...good catch. It seems like a better lesson could have been taught about priorities if he had gone to the funeral.
Maybe not. It could be that this distasteful situation will teach the son not to be like his father. We can only hope.
Well sure. But I'm assuming it was within the guidelines of the written e-mail which was quite specific.
"2) Even if there was a mutually agreed on rule (albeit a stupid one) why ruin the team's chance at a championship?"
Why did the coach ruin the teams' chances? I don't know. But he did.
According to the article, the team could have picked another coach and gone on to the championship. They chose not to.
"3) The commissioner's son will now: 1) depise his father for being a mean bastard, 2) hate the fact that his father's ridiculous rule ever existed, 3) feel guilty even though he didn't do anything wrong (but his father did), 4) have to watch his father get a public shaming for this, and 5) NOT PLAY AGAIN THIS SEASON WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP."
Perhaps. The son will also learn that 1) his father means what he says, and 2) there are consequences to disobeying the rules.
Those lessons will take him much farther in life than playing in the championship.
"The coach claims to have reached an agreement with the commissioner about making decisions he thought best. I have no reason to doubt his word."
I do. We have the coach "saying" he had a verbal understanding which was contrary to the written (and very explicit) e-mail. We have the coach abiding by that e-mail the entire season, not ONCE making a decision not to play the kid on defense. I suppose you think that was just a coincidence?
"I have no reason to believe that that is what happened -- unless you can prove the coach is lying."
My "proof" is that the coach always played the kid on defense, never once making a change. You would have me believe that was mere coincidence. I don't. The coach is lying.
"Once a team is established it has to be about the team -- especially when kids are involved."
I belive that. If the coach believed that, he should have informed the commissioner before he took the job.
"Did the kids suffer for no reason whatsoever?"
The kids chose not to go to the championship without their coach. You can either respect their decision or feel sorry for them. Not both.
I didn't base anyone's credibility on those factors. I don't understand why you did. What do those actions have to do with credibility?
Prior to the last game, the coaches abided by the rules set out in the commissioner's e-mail. The entire season. They never strayed from them.
Now, you expect me to believe that was mere coincidence? I mean, that's what YOU believe, right? You believe the coaches had the authority to do whatever they wanted to do -- they just chose not to. Right?
That's right, because that's what the coaches stated. Oh, I forgot - you'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to the derelict who wouldn't take his son to pay respects to his own grandmother.
Well, what else is he going to say -- I thought his rules were stupid and condescending so I broke them the last game of the season thinking "He can't fire me with this winning record"?
But let's say you're right. Then help me out. Why did the coaches abide by the e-mail all season, never once violating the commissioner's conditions? Coincidence?
Who knows? Maybe it is coincidence. Maybe they weren't involved in close games all year, and so there was no need to maximize their talent. Maybe there was an injury in this last game that necessitated a lineup change.
It could be any number of things.
Parents can take the fun out of any game. I was a volunteer Little League umpire some years ago. After a particularly difficult game, I wrote this:
The Ump (Say Blue)
The Ump's the one you love to hate.
The one who stands behind the plate.
The one who stands behind the bag.
The who clearly missed the tag.
The one who called the batter out.
The one that makes The Game a bout.
Call's 'em wrong, most every play.
No matter what you do or say.
Must be blind, or need the cure.
Don't know The Book, that's for sure.
Too bad, there's two teams to The Game.
Then, every call could be the same.
We could walk every runner, call them all safe.
Everyone would be happy. No one left to chafe.
We could vote on the close calls, with a show of hands.
Maybe, then we'd get more umps out of the stands.
Remember, the ump is like you or me.
But, they've volunteered for this abuse you see.
They're not really blind, on drugs, or lame.
They're just CRAZY.
'Bout The Kids.
'Bout The Game.
The same holds for coaches. Bless 'em.
LOL !
The commissioner is insane. If I were a parent, I'd organize one of those torch carrying marches to his home, pelt it with eggs and toilet paper, then do it again the following night. I'm not joking. This is the traditional American way of handling this sort of injustice.
Yep. See 45.
TO came from a very troubled upbringing and didn't even become "TO" until the 1998 NFC Wildcard game-winning catch against the Packers. TO never was able to trust people or feel like he was loved unconditionally and that catch taught him that he could love himself unconditionally and trust himself, filling that void.
Me? No. As their coach, I would have told the commissioner that I decide what's best for the team not what's best for his son.
But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is whether the coach thought it was correct. And it's obvious HE did.
"What kind of lesson and example is that setting for his son?"
The lesson is the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold, make the rules.
The son will also learn that 1) his father means what he says, and 2) there are consequences to disobeying the rules. Those two lessons will take him much farther in life than playing in the championship.
That's not at all clear from the story.
"Hinkle's son played defensive end for most of the season"
Could have played offense & defense in earlier games. In fact, no coach with Owens' experience would take a shot in the dark by switching a pure defensive end to sticking him on offense in a critical game, without that player having playbooked, scrimmaged, and previously played that position on offense.
KERRY VOTER
IF the coach had explicitly agreed to the terms of the email (i.e. that the son play every minute of defense) you would have a stronger case. However, the article doesn't indicate that this agreement occurred. It sounds like the coaches received the email, then called the father. I'm thinking that the coaches said to the father, "we recognize that johnny is great on defense, but we'd like to be able to use our judgment as to what's best for both johnny and the team." Quite possibly the coaches thought they had flexibility, the father thought they still would play johnny on defense all the time.
If this confusion occurred, do you still think the father was right?
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.