Norwich bulletin., 1909-12-18
CANADIAN RUGBY.
Jury of American Experts Say It Cant
 Take Place of American Game.

After seeing the Canadian Rugby fqootball game played in New York Saturday afternoon between Hamilton and Ottawa teams, the comments made by the prominent football coaches of American colleges show that 1t failed to make much of a hit with them.
 Camps Opinion.
 Walter Camps views are given as follows:
 As played by the Hamilton Ottawa teams, football is much less dangerous than as played in the United States. Or course. you cannot tell how dan gerous the game would be if played by Americans. In both games this possi- bility of injury, but the openness of the Canadian game makes the proba- bility of serious hurts less than it would be between American teams un- der American rules.
 There are many things about the Rugby game I admire. One of these is the freedom of bunting. The rule which allows a man free kick Is a good one.
 Tn the matter of tackling I cannot see much difference Americans throw their men harder, but the rules gov erning the tackle are the same. The increased bunting which the Rugby game permits however would make hard tackles less frequent and thus lessen the liability of hard injuries.
 Might Adopt Some Points From It.
 "To my mind the game seen was less spectacular than the American game, and therefore less interesting. I do not believe that as a whole it will ever be adopted in this country, though We may take hints from some of it's features"
 Here are the views of Alonzo Stagg of Chicago:
 There is no doubt that the Canadian game as played this afternoon is more open than our game, but it is a ques- tion in my mind whether this openness is an advantage. The play seems to be loose. and the element of chance enters largely. It is seldom that a tumble entails any great disadvantage to the team that muffs the ball. There does not seem to be enough stress laid on accurate play. In brief. the game does not seem so highly developed as ours.
 There are many things that 1 like about it, though; among them are the long and accurate passes. Another good point is the bunting. The way the punts are got off from directly be- hind the line of scrimmage is simply great.
 Lack of Interference.
 'When 1t comes to the lack of inter ference for the runner, I think that is very bad. Perhaps it does away with some of the possibilities of injury, but it also kills the salient feature of our game. On the whole do not think the game an adequate substitute for our own"
 William Edwards. formerly a Prince ton star player and now commissioner nf street 0lQQn in Natxy Work Cain+
 f'There is no doubt that the game is far less dangerous than our game. It lacks, however. the individual bril- liance of the American game, and therefore can never take its place. The best feature of the play was the absence of mass plays"
 This is what I ieutenant Nelly, U. s. A, had to say:
 '"The best point I can see in the Canadian game is tile freedom of punt ing and passing. The way the men and the inactivity of the forwards would never do in our game"
 Not a Good Substitute for Ours.
 F. S. Land, naval constructorAand halfback at Annapolis in 1898 to h02. said:
 "The long passes and the great amount of gicking is what appeals to me. The worst feature is the lack of interference and the way more than half of both teams are kept out of each play.
 T don't think the Canadian game is a good substitute for ours-it seems too unscrientific. But think it would be to our advantage to adopt some of their methods"