Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-18

ping, smuggling, interference with q man
me- king a fair catch. rOughing, coaching
from the side lines. all the offenses the foot
bali player h heir to have been punished
this season. Onside play and interference
with q fair catch are ofYenses easily par
donable, being due to zeal chiefly, but the
other offenses smack more of a lack of
craftsmanship. The officials are having
their hands full, not only watching for PEN
aities, Dut In trying to adjust contentious.
Last saturday there were two disputed
pc ints-whether Princeton scored another
touchdown against Annapolis and whether
touchdown was made in the Leland STAN
fCrd-California freshman game. The ethics
of the game might be improved. The power
given to the linesman of watching out for
penalties has resulted in infractions of the
rules being detected more than formerly,
but officials with four eyes will be needed al
the rate things are going. Harvard's Of
fepse OF coaching from the side lines last
Saturday was much more reprehensible
than the 'armor plate" incident. The mat
ter of the aluminium plates in the Harvard
khaki was, in so far as it violated the rules,
due to accident rather than design-care-
lessress in arranging the plates. The idea
seems to have been permissible enough il
properly carried out. The rule covering the
point says:
No one having projecting nails or iron
plates on his shoes or any projecting metal
lie or hard substance on his person shall be
allowed to play in a match. If head pro-
tectors are worm no sole leather, papier
mache or other hard or unyielding material
shall be used in their construction, and all
other devices or protectors must be so ar
ranged and padded as. In the judgment OF
the umpire, to be without danger to other
players. Leather cleats upon the shoes
shall be allowed as heretofore.
In the Freshman game in California Fen
ton, the Stanford quarter back, kicked the
ball. California waited for 1t to roll over
her goal line, but the ball stopped foot
short Of the line and Fenton dived for 1T
and nailed it. Then Stanford went over for
a touchdown. The question raised was
whether Stanford was entitled to the ball
when 1t fell-a question of being on side
Section c of rule says:
The man who, standing back of his own
line of Scrimmage, receives the ball from
one of his own side and then KICKS 1t pc
yond the line of scrimmage may not put
other men on-side by running ahead OF
them, nor may he himself get the ball until
after 1t has touched player of the oppos-
ing side.
The case at Annapolis was rather COM
plicated. Accounts say that Ritter, the
Princeton quarter back. fumbled a pass
but recovered and handed the ball to Short.
and when the heap was untangled back OF
the Annapolis goal line Ritter, as well as
Short had his hands on the ball. Under
these circumstances 1t was not unreasona-
BILE for the official to infer that Ritter ran
with the ball. The penalty for the second
man running with the ball. unless five yards
to the side, is loss of fifteen yards. This
was inflicted on the Tigers. and no touch
down was allowed. An official might readl-
ly believe that Ritter took the ball himself
when he recovered the leather. since Ritter
had his hands on the ball when the scrim-
mage was over. On the other hand, Snort
could have taken the ball over and Ritter,
in helping him through again placed MS
hands on the pigskin. 1t was the officiars
business to see just how the ball was car
ried over the line. Meager accounts of the
play make 1t difficult to tell whether evi-
hence of the ewes or circumstantial evidence
prompted the ruling made in the case. The
moral Is: Don't tumble.