New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-11
RUTTERWORTH'S VIEWS.
Which You'd Restore Game OF
Life and Interest.

Frank Butterworth. one Of the recognized eu-
thorities Yale football If not intercollegiate
football and OF the greatest fullbacks that
Yale ever had. asked what he considered ad-
visable IN the line OF changes from the present
game Of football and what he thought could be
done 10 make the game possibly q less dangerous
than IL 10 AT present. Mr.. Butterworth. who 10
particularly familiar with the style Of mass play
that has been used by the big teams IN the East
this year IN response to the question said:
think few football men are In sympathy with
the attack on the game the grounds OF its bru-
7ality and rufianism with the petitions 70 the
legislatures college faculties Rufnanism and
brutality not features OF the game, and foot
hall men and players are not to blame for the pub
,fcity which greatly masnifes small evils Out
bursts OF criticism Of this character like those
that came eight ten years ago delivered by those
who believe what they read and not by those who
have a real knowledge Of conditions. and fol-
lowed by evil results rather than good ones Brutal
Sly and rufhanism are little features of football
the assertion that they are in itself proves the
ignorance Of the individual making such state
Ineut- Freed from the practice Of organized root
ing the generalization OF winning, there is no
game OF greater benefit mentally and physically.
than the old game OF college football
There is rome danger in It. as in most other
games but not an undue amount, and the idea that
prevails that there is more danger in the close
game than the old open one is in my opinion
erroneous. The old and open game is not game
involving the least risk OF injury
suggest or two rules which would effect the
wished-for change. unless they were followed up
by intelligent influence. What both player and
spectator desire is return the game in which
the play Of each position-tackle, guard, halfback,
etc-3s first mastered and then intelligent play Of
them altogether, which is game of life and in
rerest. not to be compared with the evoutOns and
foot movements at present called football. If the
latter were interesting the old game night
accept II a substitute. but il IS because il
lacks the exhibition Of Individual intelligence and
skill. and therefore has brought about too little
individual development. Football Of the present
calls for hatter heavier more stupid aggregation
Of men than IL did. as a class az east among the
Eastern colleges The West still puts somewhat Of
premium upon speed. intelligence and cleverness.
Any legislation which will place in line
and four back Of II and make them learn the pays
for The positions and which viii prevent eleven
from getting the field and crossing their op
desirable The only recommendation therefore. that
would make for the present is a rule requiring
men IN line without shifting and four men
back OF IL II might be said in reply to this sug-
sestion that little ground could be gained because
Of the great increase in efficiency OF the second
line Of defence. The second line Of defence IS about
the only thing in the game that has improved and
been well developed. so that there would be some
thing In such reply. On the other hand however.
the efficiency OF every Individual especially the
backs the offence. has greatly deteriorated, ana
when we see them reach, go beyond. they
should. the standard OF several years ago.
tell whether such plan would work The chances
are that IL would