The rules laid out by the commissioner in an e-mail to both coaches.
"Before the season, Hinkle set out the specific terms of his son's play to the coaches. In the e-mail to the two coaches, he said he would leave it up to them whether Scott played offense. But the commissioner also said that Scott must play every minute on defense."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Which was followed by "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.
Thus, the coaches had reached an agreement with the commissioner on this, thereby invalidating your point.
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?