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 ...
I'll read my football rule book again, but I don't see anything about the commissioner being able to dictate where/when his son plays??? Which page are you reading from?
How about "condition"?
"Certainly the coaches violated no established league rules."
Correct. I never said or implied they did.
"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."
Well of course he could have done those things. But the coaches violated his condiditions which were clearly spelled out in writing. He fired the coaches. He then told the team that they could continue on with new coaches. They chose not to. If they had chosen differently, we would never have read this story.
"So tell me again why I should not consider Mr. Hinkle a jerk?"
Well, he's a jerk for coming up with those conditions to begin with, yes. But once everyone agreed to those conditions, what followed was inevitable.
No, he doesn't. By league rules, he does not 'own' the league. In fact, both the League Chairman and an Executive Board member came out against Hinkle's decision and are directing an investigation into Owens dismissal.
You keep yammering about the takeaway, the takeaway will be Hinkle's son will watch his dad be fired by the FCYFL within their league rules; and Hinkle will watch his son become a pariah as Scott comes to realize his father is a just another worthless control freak.
I didn't realize that only coaches were allowed to post on this thread. Where did you see that?
At least I will give you credit that you would have told the Commissioner no if you were the coach.
Oh. OK. Uh-huh.
You wrote: "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 can do both. I respect their decision to stand by their coach and I feel sorry for them that they won't be able to go to the championship as the team they were a mere matter of days ago.
I think the greater lesson here is that the coach showed some spine against a power-drunk league commissioner, did what he thought was best withing the rules set down by the league, and showed the commissioner for what he really was. It's not about blindly obeying one dictator's whim, but about exercising judgment within the official standards.
Correct. Which was fine with the commissioner. His concern was that his son play defense every minute of every game. If the coaches ALSO used him on offense, that was their call.
Apparently, in the last game,the coaches played him on offense instead of defense. The first time they did that all season.
Either you're a contrarian just posting to get a rise out of people, or you're an imbecile. No rational person could possibly believe that's what will come from this situation.
That was their PHONE call with Hinkle, which clearly superceded any obnoxious e-mail.
And very possibly the commissioner responded, "You can play him wherever you wish, as long as he plays defense every minute of every game."
My understanding is that this is then what the coaches did. He played defense (and offense when needed). The final game, however, he played offense instead of defense. That wasn't what they agreed to. They were then fired.
"However, the article doesn't indicate that this agreement occurred"
Well, no, it doesn't. But why did the coaches abide by the written e-mail all season, only violating it in the final game? Coincidence?
Hmmmm. Did you read anything about the commissioner not being able to do this?
Which league rule was broken?
He "owns" the league? Did he buy all the uniforms? Pay for the coaching? Pay for the gas that got all the kids to practice? He should be kicked out of the commissionership himself.
That's certainly one way to look at it. Another way is that he violated his word.
You're kidding, right? We're not talking about a rule. We're talking about pure fiat from the commissioner. There is no league-wide rule that states the commissioners son should play every down on defense and the penalties for violating this rule would include instant dismissal of the coaches.
I did read that.
Why then did the coaches abide by the conditions of the e-mail the entire season, only violating those conditions in the last game when the commissioner was out of town?
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.