1337_Dude wrote:Madison wrote:1337_Dude wrote:I disagree about how black and white this is. He couldn't have been too clear, because he left room for the coaches to misinterpret what he was said during their follow up conversation to his e-mail.
The coach got the email before the season started. The owner attended every game except for the last game. In the last game of the season the coach broke the rule. Do you really think the coach was unaware of a rule that existed all season long? If so, then you believe the coach to be a HUGE moron.
I can only go by what the article says and it seems the coach and the assistant coaches were under the same assumption that the final call was up to them.When the coaches got the e-mail, they said, they spoke to Hinkle and believed that he understood that the coaches would decide where his son played.
"There was 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.
I read the article. Twice in fact.
What I'm saying is that I don't believe for one second that going into the final game of the season that the coach didn't know what the rule was. Every practice, every minute of defense, etc. I do not see how the coach didn't know exactly what the rule was by the time the final game of the season rolled around.
Coppermine wrote:See, I disagree; if you put it as right/wrong as you do, you have to think that perhaps the coach did what he did because it was best for the team (as indicated from the article) and that he did, in fact, play the kid... only on offense; because he thought perhaps it would be more beneficial in the game (which they won). I have to think that maybe the coach questioned the authority of the commissioner and made a decision as coach that he thought was right. These are the kinds of people we should admire. Those who blindly accept "the rules" as set by egomaniacal youth football coaches, as opposed to those who actually care about the team. If the coach knew he was doing something that may get him fired then, good for him! He should do what he thinks is right as coach, not as some clown whose coaching is orchestrated by the commish. I'm not going to argue that it's certainly within the rights of the commissioner to do what he did... I just think it sucks and good for the coach to do what he thought was best for the team... not some nitwit's kid.
So owners have no rights as to how to run a business they own?
So I guess the guy at McDonalds should be patted on the back if he refuses to ask if you want to supersize your meal because he knows that's an annoying question? I'll lay my money on that guy getting fired for not following the rules.
How about a food employee that doesn't wash his hands after going to the john? Hey, it's quicker and faster than taking the time to wash up, and just because ownership says he has to, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be patted on the back for fighting "the man", right?
It's actually quite admirable that the owner would go to all the cost and trouble to set up an entire league of over 1,000 kids in order to give his son the best competition possible. All that work, time, and money, and then the coach intentionally does the opposite of what the entire thing was set up for. Now the owner is the bad guy for firing the coach and trying to bring in a new coach?
Blown way, way out of proportion.