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?
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?