N.Va. Boys' Championship Dream Doomed by a Moment of Vengeance

The Washington Post ^ | 11/4/06 | Timothy Dwyer

[Drango]

The coach who (for whatever reason) agreed to those rules, abided by those rules, then violated those rules

I'll read my football rule book again, but I don't see anything about the commissioner being able to dictate where/when his son plays??? Which page are you reading from?

[robertpaulsen]

"You keep saying "rule" when you probably should be saying "request."

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.

[StAnDeliver]

"I own the league."

No, he doesn't. By league rules, he does not 'own' the league. In fact, both the League Chairman and an Executive Board member came out against Hinkle's decision and are directing an investigation into Owens dismissal.

You keep yammering about the takeaway, the takeaway will be Hinkle's son will watch his dad be fired by the FCYFL within their league rules; and Hinkle will watch his son become a pariah as Scott comes to realize his father is a just another worthless control freak.

[robertpaulsen]

"And just how many kids did you put thru local sports systems? And you've coached how many years?"

I didn't realize that only coaches were allowed to post on this thread. Where did you see that?

[hodaka]

At least I will give you credit that you would have told the Commissioner no if you were the coach.

[robertpaulsen]

"Who knows? Maybe it is coincidence. Maybe they weren't involved in close games all year, and so there was no need to maximize their talent. Maybe there was an injury in this last game that necessitated a lineup change."

Oh. OK. Uh-huh.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "The kids chose not to go to the championship without their coach. You can either respect their decision or feel sorry for them. Not both."

I can do both. I respect their decision to stand by their coach and I feel sorry for them that they won't be able to go to the championship as the team they were a mere matter of days ago.

[SlowBoat407]

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?

I think the greater lesson here is that the coach showed some spine against a power-drunk league commissioner, did what he thought was best withing the rules set down by the league, and showed the commissioner for what he really was. It's not about blindly obeying one dictator's whim, but about exercising judgment within the official standards.

[Senior Chief]

Apparently you didn't read the full article. The coaches did not agree with the email (not rules) from the commissioner and called him with respect to his "requirements". By the end of their phone conversation the coaches were under the impression that it was agreed the coaches would decide how to play the son.

[robertpaulsen]

"Could have played offense & defense in earlier games."

Correct. Which was fine with the commissioner. His concern was that his son play defense every minute of every game. If the coaches ALSO used him on offense, that was their call.

Apparently, in the last game,the coaches played him on offense instead of defense. The first time they did that all season.

[NittanyLion]

The son will also learn that 1) his father means what he says, and 2) there are consequences to disobeying the rules. Those two lessons will take him much farther in life than playing in the championship.

Either you're a contrarian just posting to get a rise out of people, or you're an imbecile. No rational person could possibly believe that's what will come from this situation.

[StAnDeliver]

"If the coaches ALSO used him on offense, that was their call."

That was their PHONE call with Hinkle, which clearly superceded any obnoxious e-mail.

[hodaka]

I remember there was this father who coached his son through out his entire little league football career. The son was awful but the father was a real control freak and one of those real know it all. Every team that this father coached they would lose because he would put his son in the positions he was no good at. Unfortunately for the son he picked up his fathers characteristics of being a know it all and control freak in his latter life. That little boys name is Rosie O'Donnell.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm thinking that the coaches said to the father, "we recognize that johnny is great on defense, but we'd like to be able to use our judgment as to what's best for both johnny and the team."

And very possibly the commissioner responded, "You can play him wherever you wish, as long as he plays defense every minute of every game."

My understanding is that this is then what the coaches did. He played defense (and offense when needed). The final game, however, he played offense instead of defense. That wasn't what they agreed to. They were then fired.

"However, the article doesn't indicate that this agreement occurred"

Well, no, it doesn't. But why did the coaches abide by the written e-mail all season, only violating it in the final game? Coincidence?

[robertpaulsen]

"I'll read my football rule book again, but I don't see anything about the commissioner being able to dictate where/when his son plays??? Which page are you reading from?"

Hmmmm. Did you read anything about the commissioner not being able to do this?

[robertpaulsen]

"the takeaway will be Hinkle's son will watch his dad be fired by the FCYFL within their league rules;"

Which league rule was broken?

[madison10]

He "owns" the league? Did he buy all the uniforms? Pay for the coaching? Pay for the gas that got all the kids to practice? He should be kicked out of the commissionership himself.

[robertpaulsen]

"I think the greater lesson here is that the coach showed some spine against a power-drunk league commissioner"

That's certainly one way to look at it. Another way is that he violated his word.

[Hoodat]

You're kidding, right? We're not talking about a rule. We're talking about pure fiat from the commissioner. There is no league-wide rule that states the commissioners son should play every down on defense and the penalties for violating this rule would include instant dismissal of the coaches.

[robertpaulsen]

"By the end of their phone conversation the coaches were under the impression that it was agreed the coaches would decide how to play the son."

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?