And do you afford Mario Cristobal that same benefit-of-the-doubt? Seems you only want to give QB Ward that luxury. See it can go both ways.
My point in all of this was to say that if Mario Cristobal did not agree with the decision to sit Ward and it ultimately wasn't his call (which by all accounts evidence would suggest that to be the case), then why should one man (Cristobal) stand and defend another man's (Ward) decision? The distinction between 'defending' and 'taking cover' is whether the person at the podium agrees with the decision or not (which again, all signs are pointing to CMC not wanting to sit Cam for the second half), so what action would naturally be left other than to "taking cover" for Cam. Outside of just being forthright and honest in the post-game presser, is there some third option I am missing. Please, happy to entertain the intellectual honesty.
Look--he's not a kid. He's not a child, or a teen or even a student athlete in the pre-NIL sense--Ward is a well-compensated man and leader or men. He is his own brand executive. He decides; he makes the call and so he should take ownership of that. CMC--he's a coach, not a public defender (lawyer); and we can stand in the CiS Quad all day back-and-forth in debate about how this poses a moral, ethical and/or practical dilemma.
You are making the false assumption that I am clowning on Ward but I do not see where that is coming from. A great record season and a controversial decision to sit in a bowl game are mutually exclusive events. I can express a disagreement with his decision in the latter while simultaneously not undermining my appreciation for the former.
I am searching for the contrast on a blurred line as to what responsibilities lie with the man on the field and what responsibilities lie with the guy wearing the headset. It seems like a convenience, coincidence or a cudgel--to pick and choose when and which standard to apply it to. To what end does a head coach or a player take individual responsibility for their own actions? What is intellectually dishonest about asking why one man should defend another's actions even if he disagrees with it?