Posted on 11/04/2006 4:21:46 AM PST by T-Bird45
Well, there we have it; - we are all missing the point that the coaches accepted the commissioner's inappropriate, rude, condescending, and manipulative conditions, -- and
because they coached the entire season under those conditions they did not then have the power to ignore those conditions in the final game; -- and were rightously fired for it.
-- After all the golden rule is set by those with the gold and the end must justify the means, and that's what the commissioner was trying to teach the coaches & children.
The coaches did. Not only did they accept them, they implemented them.
"Invalid contracts cannot be made valid simply because you adhere to some of the conditions"
Some? Try all. Or maybe you could tell me which conditions were not adhered to from Day 1?
That said, perhaps the commissioner's conditions were indeed invalid. The time to challenge them, however, was at the beginning of the season, not the final game. Since the coaches honored those conditions throughout the season, the commissioner had a reasonable expectation that those conditions would be honored in the game he was unable to attend.
Oh, spare me the legalese. You wanna dance, let's dance.
We've got the contents of a written e-mail acknowledged by both sides vs. the conversation in an unrecorded phone call claimed by one side after the fact. You lose.
We've got an entire football season where the kid was played per the conditions of the e-mail vs. your claim that the coaches had the flexibility to do what they wanted, they simply chose not to -- until the only game where the father was unable to attend. You lose (I'm not a big believer in coincidence).
Nope. You cannot have a reasonable expectation of unreasonable demands.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Acceptance is explicit, not implicit.
You are the one who initiated the "legalese" with the the ridiculous assertion that the children would be learning not to obey rules if the coaches violated an invalid demand. Despite your best assertion, you cannot prove acceptance of the conditions... you can only assume (and only that by basing your argument on the "trustworthiness" of individuals as subjectively determined by you). And even if they did accept, it would be invalid on its face. Better luck next time...
Sure you can. Especially if those demands have been met all season. It would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.
Nice try. I said no such thing, nor could I.
The coaches, despite their assertions after the fact, complied with the e-mail throughout the football season. Then they went against it and were fired. Re-hiring them would send the message that it's OK to break the rules with which you disagree.
The legalese was your petulant whining that there was no formal acceptance of some formal contract.
"Despite your best assertion, you cannot prove acceptance of the conditions..."
They coached, didn't they? And the manner in which they coached right up to the last game was consistent with the e-mail, wasn't it?
You want me to believe that was coincidence? Yeah, I bet you do.
Its hopeless to attempt to reason further against "standard troll behavior":
It has been admitted that 'perhaps' the commissioner's inappropriate, rude, condescending, and manipulative conditions were indeed invalid.
Game, set, match.
L
They didn't honor it. They called the jerk on the phone and thought they came to an understanding.
Yeah, I read that.
Then why did they honor the conditions laid out in the e-mail all season? Every game. Without the sightest deviation.
Do you expect me to believe that was mere coincidence?
In the story they never write the sons complete name (Scott Hinkle), just the fathers.
Had they done so he (the spoiled little @!#$!) would be forever Google linked to this event. It would haunt him for life. That would be a good outcome. People (especially girls) often google people they are about to hire or date. They should know what kind of environment Scott Hinkle's character was formed in.
If I had been writing the story I would have written the boys complete name out every time it came up. As it is he will only have to live it down locally. The reporter showed mercy on the boy, but not the dad. Then again this kid already has enough going against him (but not enough for me to remove his complete name from this post).
Raptors Win Game Under Fired Coaches
Fairfax Team That Missed Playoffs Over Commissioner Imbroglio Given Rousing ReceptionBy Candace Rondeaux, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 13, 2006; Page B04 [excerpt]"There was still a little pain, and a whole lot of rain, but the South County Raptors played through it like champions yesterday. The spunky team of 12- to 14-year-old boys from southern Fairfax County made one last successful grab for gridiron glory with a 6-0 victory over the ferocious Gainesville Grizzlies.
Cheers went up on both sides of the field yesterday as the Raptors walked hand-in-hand onto the rain-soaked playing field in Vienna.
Although Hinkle allowed the Raptors to use league equipment and facilities for yesterday's game, his son did not play. The fired coaches did, however, return to coach a team that had stood up for them.
Andrew punched in the winning touchdown with just under a minute to go in the second quarter. The 12-year-old from Lorton said he was sorry Hinkle's son wasn't there to share in the victory and said he wished Hinkle had been more sportsmanlike. "I was sad when I found out we wouldn't be playing," Andrew said. "It would be great if he would apologize, but if not, we'll just have to hold on."
League Chairman Mark Meana, who helped arrange yesterday's special bowl game, said the incident had not only marred the season for the Raptors but stained the league's reputation."
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.