Los Angeles herald., 1907-12-01
FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES DIS
CUSS M00TED SCnRE
MEMBERS OF RULES COMMITTEE
SAY TRACER WAS WRONG
Fans Are Waiting fer Referee of Close
Contest Between University and
High School to Answer
~ Critics
by ROBERT NJ. BEERE

ing each other the national football rules
committee is out with signed statements
! by it's various members and a warm
| scrap between local ians has developed
! into a widespread discussion by Sriulroh
| experts all because of the row following
the University of Southern California
| Los Angeles high school game which
| was played in Ihe early Iart OF Inc
| season
Coach Holmes of the varsity eleven and
Coach a. w. Sorenson of Los Angeles
high have both contributed their opln-
| ious on the subject, the latter giving a
signed statement to The Herald, while
tonnes stated his position in terse in
tervlew last night.
In the ensuing discussion both coaches
agreed that the following presentation
of The two plays that caused the con-
lroversy is correct:
Play No. 1, the Alleged Safety
Mitchell of. L. a. high punted to U. 5.
c. The ball was touched by U. s. G
man, who did not gam possession of the
ual which bounded on over the u. s. Z.
&c i line, where the U. s. C. man felt
ON it.
play No. 2, Alleged Touchdown
| High school kicked or to u. S. c. and
| the nall was caught by u. S. c. man,
| VINO returned the kick. The ball struck
The ground and was ,aken by anoLhet
| u. s. G.. man before a high school man
mad touched the ball. The y. S. c. man
ran it down for Il touchdown.
Official Score too
| According to Referee William Traeger's S
rulings the alleged safety was, not
| sale.y but louchuack, and conse-
quentiy counted for nothing for the hlgn
school. Traeger ruled, however, that the
alleged touchdown was regular, anu
| L. 1Ix. nn III,
score of the game was to in faVol
of u. ). Z.
Now, L. A high claims that the play
called No l did count and t&at it bea .
| u. S. c. by a score of to 0.
U. S. C. naturally apldes by Referee
Traeger favorable rulings, and sun
claims that Traeger was correct n al
| lowing the alleged touchdown ana Ill
| DENYING the safety.
| Coach Sorenson has communicated with
several famous eastern coaches and the
| members of the rules committee and h'
has produced letters from them in which
| those authorities criticise Traegers rul-
ings on the touchdown, and they state
fatty tina. under the circumstances the
game should have gone in favor OF the
| nigh school.
| Sorenson, in reference to the alleged
touchdown, cites the rule to the enecl
that man has a tight to return kicked
| BALL but The team that kicked the ball
cannot recover it until it has been
| touched by some man on the opposing
! teF Instead of being considered
touchdown it should have peen second
| down for u. S. c., after the varsity had
| been penali7ed five yards for being Off
| side and Traeger was badly mistaken IN
! ruling otherwise, according to Sorenson.
| Inasmuch as the rules committee and
| several great coaches have taken the
! position in favor of high schools con-
| tention a bitter fight is anticipated over
whether Referee Traeger was right or
wrong in ruling for U. S. G.
To make matters more complicated
MANY football experts whose opinion is
worthy of weighty consideration have
| openly declared that neither the alleged
! safety nor the alleged touchdown snould
| have counted, that Traeger was mis-
| taken in deciding play No. touch
down and that the referee was correct in
deciding play No. l was a touchback
One authority says that the score should
| have been to U.
Williams VS.. Traeger
When football doctors disagree, what
| can ordinary fans do?
DR.. Henry L. Williams of Minneapolis,
whose word is taken as law on the grid
| iron, wrote the following letter in answer
to a request that he md down an Of
! fetal opinion in regard to the plays un-
der discussion:
| "In reply | would say that my opinion
| in this matter is that when a kick Is
returned the side which has returned the
kick cannot recover the ball again until
| n has been touched by one of the. op
ponents (see page 2S5 in the summary OF
the rules). This rule should appear un
der rule 20.
1.-The rules committee made no change
In this. 1t seems to me that in printing
the rules this clause, which Is referred
TO in the summary on page 2S5, nine lines
from the bottom, has apparently been
left out (See 1907 rule book.
| "ITnder section 4, rule 20, 1t says in
italics that player of the side which puts
the ball in play is put on side when a
kicked ball touches the ground. 1t does
not say that the side which returns the
kick is put on side when the ball touches
the ground. hope that this explana-
ton of the case will be accepted as sat
isfactory."
Holmes Gives Opinion
Coach Holmes has the following to say:
"IJ S. C. is sustained in its contention
that the alleged safety was in reality
nothing but a touch-back by two rules.
First IL the ball is punted and goes over
tho goal line, it goes as a touch back
second. if the ball punted is juggled ny
the side defending the goal and it still
goes over the line, it is touch-back. l
refer any of our critics to rule 6. section
5, page 146, of the 1907 rules. which reads
verbatim as follows: When a player on
defense permits the ball kicked by an
oppopent to strike his Nperson and then
the ball rolls across the goal line, and
anv PLAYER of his side then falls on it,
hack of the line. it is touch-back'
I'm regard to the u. S. C. touchdown,
will say that there was some discussion
concerning the liability of such contin-
leency occurring. so Referee Traeger called
both teams before him and told them
before the game started that in case a
hall was kicked, whenever it touched the
ground, everyone was ON side. Traeger
having informed both teams of what his
decision would be in the event of such a
play arising, it certainly could not have
| ts..a,, n st,,r1rfsa or "a trick MAY N fn ri