Posted on 11/04/2006 4:21:46 AM PST by T-Bird45
The South County Raptors, a scrappy football team made up of 12- to 14-year-old boys from southern Fairfax County, were supposed to meet the Herndon Hornets today in the first round of the county playoffs.
Instead, the Raptors are at home, their season over with no possibility of a championship after a league commissioner fired the head coach and the assistant coach this week. Their offense? They moved the commissioner's son from defense to offense for the final game of the season last Saturday, an overtime win that put the Raptors in the postseason.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You got to be kidding. Maybe you must be related to this jerk.
The father had the son play football and instead of attendeding his grandmother's funeral.
Exactly what rule did the coaches agree to? The "rule" as described in the email?
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.
Words fail me.
I did. I just didn't believe it.
I found it odd that in spite of this "understanding" the coaches NEVER played the kid on offense. I guess you didn't read that part.
I agree. The terms were outrageous and insulting.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050819/ai_n14917543
Certainly the coach bears full responsibility for what happened. You disagree? Do you think the lesson for these kids should be that we only obey the rules that we agree with?
Rules is rules but this was not a rule. This was the tyrannical spite of a tiny minded fool with much more power than he could handle. Seems to me the kids should show up for the game and let the Comish rant on the field.
Fair enough. But how has Mr. Hinkle's behavior in this case helped his son?
You're correct the sponsor made the terms of his sponsorship perfectly clear, and was in his rights to stick to the deal. The coach never should of accepted the terms offered.
Does the article say that Mr. Hinkle was the team's "sponsor"? I must have missed that. Hinkle seems to believe he owns not just the team but the entire league, but the article suggests otherwise:
The Fairfax County Youth Football League is one of the area's largest, fielding 314 teams in various weight and age categories. Hinkle is commissioner of the South County Youth Association, one of 23 clubs that make up the league.
The article also points out that the other players' families spent time and money so their sons could play on the team:
The investment by parents in time and money is substantial. Parents pay a fee of as much as $160, which goes toward equipment and other costs. They also have to ferry their boys to practice three times a week.
Perhaps, as you say, that Hinkle was within his rights to fire the coaches. But he had no good reason to do so. He is a jerk who is setting a lousy example for his son.
Yes, I noticed that too. But keep in mind that the man has his priorities.
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.
In essence, you can choose to believe one of two sides.
The first is the account of two coaches who inspired great loyalty among their players and the players' parents, coached for seven years, and spoke openly to the WP about this event.
The second is a commissioner who would rather his son play football than attend his grandmother's funeral, refused to comment for this story, and put his own ego above the team's goals.
Yet for some reason, you think the latter party has more credibility...
Not at all. I'll ask again. Do you think the lesson for these kids should be that we only obey the rules that we agree with?
"Maybe you must be related to this jerk."
You got to be kidding.
Yes. The one by which they abided the entire season.
Are you a lawyer looking for a loophole? Are you saying that since, technically, they never really said they agreed, that let's them off the hook?
Wow. Now THERE'S a life lesson for these kids.
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.
They're liberals and the request didn't sound that out of line.
LOL!
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.