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?
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.