The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1906-09-29
EXPERTS At ODDS
OVER NEW RULES
Football Committee Seems
to Be Entirely at Sea in
Interpreting Laws.
MEETING WAS A FARCE
Gridiron Solons Meet to Discuss Situa-
ton, But Little Is Accomplished
Quorum Was Not Present.

NEW YORK. Sept. 28.-More than
seventy-five men. Identified as coaches
and otherwise with football colleges all
over the country, INDUCED at Murray
Hin Hotel last night In hours of discus
sion OF the new playing rules. without
reaching any conclusions OF value TO
The teams engaging in gridiron battles
today. At a late hour little progress
had been made and not a great deal
was promised.
Among those who sought TO untangle
the knotted skein were seven OF the
rules committee, who are responsible
for the revised conditions Of play. There
was no quorum. and these men had not
the power 20 interpret the rules as a
body so that their interpretations could
be acted upon at once. Nor could the
major part Of the assembly. not Of the
rules committee. take any action that
would be binding upon the general foot
ball world.
In this situation little more than a
general discussion was possible, and It
ran the gamut from sensible argument
To what many termed mere hair split
ting.
Rules Are Ambiguous.
Walter Camp Of Yale acted as chair
man and ne opened the discussion by
reading some suggestions OF his own
bearing on the Interpretation Of the
rules These were put in no official ca
pacity.
For nearly two hours the assemblage
wrangled over the meaning OF the fol-
lowing rule.
No player. Of those ordinarily occupy
ing the position of center. guard or
tackle-that Is, the five middle players
Of the lne-may drop back from the
line OF scrimmage on the Offense unless
he goes back at least five yards and an
ether player Of those ordinarily behind
the line takes his place in the line. II
Is furthermore provided that there shall
be no shifting OF men 10 evade this
rule, the intentions being that the big
men in the middle or The line shall not
be dropped back for the purpose Of
carrying the ball or using their weight
IN the Interference
Although Mr.. Camp pointed out that
Il was not intended TO restrict the de-
Tense ii was argued that Il had been
made possible to use heavy men rs
backs on the Offense and put them back
IN the line on thed efense. thus violating
the spirit of the rules.
Mr. Reid, Of Harvard. took the view
that the intent OF the rule was 10 do
away with mass play, and Il must be
so interpreted
A motion was passed AT last that this
matter be referred back 10 the rules
committee for further elucidation.
All SembIance Of Order Lost.
Innumerable other questions were
brought up bearing on other points In
the rules, such as the fair catch and
the proper signal for #. and the point
al which the official must blow his
whistle for a down Some OF these ques-
tons were plain matters OF judgment
lying with the official himself, while
others went somewhat deeper.
After the meeting had lost all sem
blance Of orderly procedure a recess OF
fifteen minutes was taken. Then a mo-
ton was passed 10 the effect that The
rules be taken up IN order, beginning
with Rule !. This simplihed matters
considerably, but the going was tedious.
nevertheless
Despite the conference and threshing
over OF the rules, however. referees and
umpiTes viii have TO do what they can
today without any further light on the
subject
Among those who struggled with the
rules were Walter Camp, Yale. W T
Reid, Harvard: William H. Edwards.
Princeton. J. II. Minds and y. r Stauf-
fer. Pennsylvania; c D. DAILY. Har-
ward: J. II Wolfe. Cornell: DR.. A H
Sharpe, Yale; L. p Saunders. Column
bia, and DR.. Paul J. Dashiell, Annabo-
lis. There were also a host Of Others
somewhat less prominent in football az
fairs.