The star. (Reynoldsville, Pa.) 1892-1946, 1904-12-14
REFEREE TOO oFFfcfous.
An Authority on Football Gave Decision
In Favor of Reynoldsville

All tutnoffty on FOotDaii oave 1cCfbiou
in Favor Of Reynoldsville.
Ralph s. Kent, OF Ithaca, N. Y, a
Cornell authority on football, to whom
the dispute In the game that was play
ed In Dubois Nov. 3rd between the
'Indian" football team Of Reynoldsville
and the Ridgway team was referred,
has given a decision In favor of the
Reynoldsville team. Will G. Smith,
Of Reynoldsville, was umpire and Mr..
McClain, Of Ridgway, was referee.
Following is Mr.. Kent's decision
Foot Ball Club, Reynoldsville, Pa,
Gentlemen =
'In reply to your communication OF
the 9th inst will say, that each official
n a football game has certain duties TO
perform, and only those given him
under the rules. II is folly TO interpret
the rules so as to give the referee the
power of the umpire iu any way. One
might as we'll say the umpire could
insist on the referee making ruling
which he refused to make as TO say the
referee could insist on the umpire de-
claring foul which he did not see.
Each officer Is absolute In bis own field
Of duties. The referee can make no
rulings, nor can he insist upon any being
made, under rule II. The enforcement
Of this rule Is entirely within the um-
pire's province. The umpire can seek
Information, but referee can not
volunteer II, except on the point OF
coaching and when asked for informa-
tion, need not necessarily influence the
umpire. The umpire can do absolutely
as he pleases. The same as can the
referee in his particular field. l should
say, therefore, that the referee went
beyond his official duties in debating to
the umpire. AS to the forfeiture, rule
2S 'C' gives just two grounds for for
| feiting game refusal tn play and
committing fouls near the goal line.
The first is probably relied upon In this
instance. But since 1t was "A team
that refused to play the game should
have been forfeited to the b team. A
game is not forfeited If declared draw.
The one that forfeits must necessarily
suffer something. II such rulings as
| this referee made should become the
custom we would soon see the defeated
team raising rumpus so as to forfeit
the game and not suffer defeat. One
can easily see the death OF the game
when such thing becomes possible.
Moreover, the referee, having once
made the ruling that the touchdown
was valid, should have at least allowed
the score to stand. Generally when a
game is forfeited by team refusing to
play the opposing team is given the
| game by the store OF 6 to 0. When both
teams are In fault the score is 90. But
here in your case the 'B' team was not
In the controversy. The dispute was
solely between or among the "A team,
the umpire and the referee. The referee
had no right to declare the umpire at
fault and also punish 'B' team. The
umpire alone could declare 'B' in fault,
and since he did not do 80 the referee
should have abided by his decision and
called the game to go on. In the event
of refusal he could only award the game
to 'B' by any score he saw fit. But in
my opinion he was not justified in call
ing it draw. II 'B' had scored and
he had already allowed the score. Hop
ing this will prove satisfactory to some
of the disputants, am"
Yours truly,
RALPH S. KENT,
| Ithaca N "