New-York tribune., 1906-04-03
W. T. REID ON FOOTBALL
HarOrd Coach Expresses Has Viezcs
on the NetC Rules.

W. l. Reid tr.. the Harvard football coach and
Ie.aly or the American Intercollegiate Football
Nssociauon rules committee has letter in the
rent issue Of The Princeton Alumni Weekly in
answer TO an article in that publication on March
~ "hlch made effort TO show by statistics that
mass plays would not be abolished by the changes
IN @ the rules One OF the questions asked was:
nhy is IL that the new rules will prevent mass
paE "hen ny statistics gathered it is clearly shown
that In recent seasons many teams have averaged
hve yards to rush in their bigger games?"
In answer to this Mr.. Reid says in part:
In the first place. in the usual average of dis
lance @ gained IN plays 40yaTd runs and other large
stance in the statistics given in your article such
was not the case. One 40-yard run in a game
average When. however, we look at the matter
s from ma another point OF view the average cannot be
10 me. that We must do our practical figuring If.
is able to carry s the or a Ieyen Of given Ave or team m
!aIos IN rush Is II not fair TO assume that that
true also. that no possible method OF playing the
game can ever be expected to prevent decidedly
superior team from winning such victories?
In the second place, If team under the new
must do so in the face of a number Of handicaps
which are almost certain to be incurred during the
1t is true that with ten Yards to gain in three
downs the average 5s gain per rush would be three
yards at the present time If. however, we con
tance that might be sustained in a given down.
through tumble or the successful efforts OF the
per down Immediately increases in an overwhelm-
On the other hand. granting your claim that
vi" be abe m to make ak t ten a Yaras there IN thTfe @
be less resistance in the rush line. owing TO the
weakness Of the defence, due to the enforced scat
tering of the defensive backs (Which must occur
defence is 70 be made against the on-side kickl,
the offence will LII not be SO readily f checked b @
ing collisions which have resulted in injuries and
UndoubtedIy. So far as injuries go. we shall have
about the same proportion, for 1t has been my
Of injuries as the p'5 close e'II plays ''|'
will be able TO advance the necessary distance il
would seem that we shall have more scoring, which
ditions where II is possible to win a game through
a single individual error Of some kind. More scor-
ing means greater activity, and. consequently,
t VIII teams adopt mass plays in ,S HOnneCtGn with
adopted generally. IN the attempt at making yard
session of the ball Whether teams will adopt such
plays the backbone Of their offence is question.
To me: il seems though they Will not.
With the Introduction of the forward pass" the
&c % kick and the high tafkng & III it
for successful plays OF more open nature, ana
make BIZ gains VIII base LIS oencs can on f6s p
ciple. The weakening Of the defence ought TO help
1t must also be remembered that the necessity
the possession Of the bali less important att than l' #
has been during the last three four years since
count on geg ge 6aGK easier a than has been the
so great and therefore chances will be taken more
frequently.
Where a side may kick ball to the right or
left and recover it in it bounces, there is
going to be great temptation to attempt TO ad
vance the ball in that way; and with the
other possibilities Of offence. which of course. at
the present time are only alphabetically devel-
oped.
1t has been the general principle of the rules
committee in dealing with the question of the
changes in the rules this year to try and see how
the offence might be strengthened and the defence
weakened without saying to either the offence
defence You must stand here YOU there
and you there in set positions. In other words
the problem has been this: How TO strengthen
the offence and weaken the defence at the same
time that neither limited except In the mos:
general and necessary ways