1) The coach claims he talked to the commissioner and that the commissioner agreed to allow the coach to make the decisions he believed were necessary.
2) Even if there was a mutually agreed on rule (albeit a stupid one) why ruin the team's chance at a championship? Couldn't he have fired the coach after the championship game?
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.
"Certainly the coach bears full responsibility for what happened. You disagree?"
Yes. 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.
"Do you think the lesson for these kids should be that we only obey the rules that we agree with?"
I have no reason to believe that that is what happened -- unless you can prove the coach is lying. What the team would have learned is that people shouldn't be selfish. They should do what is best for the team. Once a team is established it has to be about the team -- especially when kids are involved.
I don't doubt the commissioner had the authority to fire the coach. I just don't see any good coming out of it. Do you?
Did anyone learn the lesson you're trying to espouse?
Nope.
Will anyone respect the commissioner or his rules after this? Him? No. His rules? Maybe.
Did the kids suffer for no reason whatsoever?
YES.
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.