Posted on 11/04/2006 4:21:46 AM PST by T-Bird45
Well, let's assume you're a rational person. What do you believe will come from this situation?
There are plenty of jerk parents and coaches in junior football but there are also some really good coaches that teach the game properly, keep it fun and keep it in perspective.
This is a very interesting part of the story. FIRST OFF, he chose to have his son play football instead of going to his Grandmother's funeral. Secondly, perhaps the Father was emotionally wrought when he made the phone call. Somehow, I think this event has alot to do with the story
So say the coaches.
But even then that was OK. The kid could play offense provided he also played defense every minute of every game.
Question. Why did both coaches abide by the "obnoxious e-mail" for every game, all season, if their phone call superceded it?
If I had been the coach at this point I would have said either this kid goes on a different team or I do, or if that isn't an option then quit. And meant it. Pompous a-holes like this Hinkle are the dogturds on the lawn of life and I no longer am willing to suffer them gladly or otherwise.
Correct. When I said "rule" I didn't mean to imply a "league rule".
I should have said "conditions".
The kid will take a lesson, though, and end up a trial lawyer.
1. The commissioner's son will be an outcast among his peers
2. The commissioner himself will be rightfully branded as an a**
3. The rest of the team will be deprived of the opportunity to play for the league championship
4. The coaches will be coaching again next year, in a different league
Possibly. Or he was upset that the first game he misses the coaches violated his conditions, something they didn't dare do when he was at the games.
Hah. You better paddle harder than that robertpaulsen because right now your canoe is heading backwards for the falls, butt-end first.
Why would a rational person conclude that? According to the article, "He also said his fellow players feel bad for Hinkle's son because he is well liked and worked hard."
Gee. Sound like just the opposite, huh? Now, personally, I think your statement is one made by a vindictive person, not a rational one.
"2. The commissioner himself will be rightfully branded as an a**"
Perhaps for the heavy-handed manner in which he was trying to help his son, yes. But not for his decision to fire the coaches who at first agreed to his conditions then violated them.
"3. The rest of the team will be deprived of the opportunity to play for the league championship"
No. The rest of the team decided to deprive themselves of the opportunity to play for the league championship.
"4. The coaches will be coaching again next year, in a different league"
Perhaps. Can they be trusted?
As robertpaulsen swirls the bowl, lets see what the kid really will learn: 1) The way to get ahead in life is to get into a position of power then abuse anyone you can to achieve your aims, whatever they may be. 2) Never let the concerns or feelings of others get in the way of bullying anyone who crosses you, even if it screws a whole team full of innocent youngsters. 3) Always be ready to beat up on people if it will get you what you want, however trivial and selfish that thing is. Yup, Hinkle and paulsen will turn out a fine bunch of kids with that approach. Real pillars of the community. Like I said, I smell a lawyer in the making.
Thank you for your well-thought-out and insightful response to my question. I learn so much reading your posts.
What is your understanding about the discretion the coaches had? Do you believe, as I do, that the coaches thought, after the telephone call, that they could play johnny as they saw fit, even if it meant that he missed some downs on defense?
If so, then what difference does it make that johnny played every down of defense until the final game? I would attribute that fact to the decision of the coach. In this situation, yes, in almost all of the games, the coaches acted AS IF they were honoring the father's original demand. However, it just so happened that their judgment coincided with the father's demands. What's the issue with this set of facts? What's wrong, under this scenario, with their changing things in the last game?
Furthermore, the coaches of the team agreed to play the commissioner's boy on every snap on defense. The coaches should have abided by the commitments he made. In my opinion, the commissioner had the right to fire them based on them violating their agreement on how to play his son.
No. I believe this is now what the coaches want the press to believe.
"However, it just so happened that their judgment coincided with the father's demands."
Every game. All season. Until the one game where the father was out of town. I don't buy it. I don't believe the coaches.
I mean, sure. It's possible. Just like the sound of hooves could be zebras and not horses.
That depends on just where on earth you are.
If the coaches violated his conditions for playing his son, he should have removed his son from the team, not the coaches.
And that's the crux of the issue. Do we believe the coaches or the commissioner? You choose to believe the commissioner, who even you admit is an arrogant moron. While you're certainly entitled to that belief, a rational review of the facts certainly reveals your flawed judgment in this matter.
Similarly, if a company's salesmen are not meeting their quotas, fire the secretary.
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.