New-York tribune., 1909-11-30
ON THE GRIDIRON
WHAT OPEN PLAY is.
old Player GiUes arguments
against FOrlcdrd Pass.

10 what Is meant by the desirability OF
making the game OF football still more
open, position taken by some Of the very
men who contend that open play in the
line is what has caused many o; the se-i-
Gus accidents OF the season that has Just
ended. Thus. some Of those who want 70
see the forward pass eliminated altogether
and the neutral zone abolished are perfectly
willing 20 have the distance required 10 be
T.ade in three downs increased TO fifteen
yards. change tnat would OF necessity
involve less frequent resorts TO line plunses
and greater dependence on end runs and
the kicking game.
These positions, although apparently az
variance. can be reGoncrled without great
difficulty. according 20 some OF the old
players who are rendering over the prob
lens presented. and these men are begin
nisg TO form their judgment and prepare
for the discussions this winter that Will
lead up TO the revision which is now re-
sarded as Inevitable
There is one thing that Is going 70 help
the rules committee tremendously this
year" said an old Yale player yesterday.
THAT is the fact that there Is something
solid and definite 70 go on in the expert
ences Of the last three years. The new
rules have been fairly and fully tried out,
with absolutely no essential changes or
notifications, and 1 venture 70 say that,
even :: the tragic record Of the last few
weeks had not aroused a storm Of protest.
there would have been a great many
changes this year
The forward pass has had its trial.
and l. for one. can see no good in t. I
was prepared 10 welcome if three years
ago. or four years ago, rather, when it
was first proposed. but. as il has worked
in practice. I fail 20 see its purpose.
Teams that are we'll matched seldom make
use OF It, and ii has been the resort OF an
eleven that was beaten on the straight
playing Of the game. when failure could
cost nothing more than had already been
lost AMI success would bring victory \
strong team can employ the play pretty
Well against a much weaker one. and so
make points faster and a weak team gets
a chance 10 make luck taIlies. but that is
about all
The harm that is done by the mass
play depends on a good many circum-
stances Under the present rules you can
drive tandem straight at a tackle, for
instance, time after time. and he hasn't
sny secondary defence TO speak of 10 help
him bear the brunt of the attack II wasn't
IOssible 10 do so much more tnan .Fat
before the changes in the rules and what
difference the ten-yard rule has made has
been nearly Offset By the neutral zone As
a matter Of fact. I think that Statistics
would show that winning teams since 1896
have gained nearly as much ground
through the line as they did in the Old
days.
The necessary drawing back OF the sec
ondary line Of defence 10 break up a pos
sible forward pass, the tendency of tackles
70 go in with their heads high. first pointed
out by Jim Hogan, and the pernicious
neutral zone have left the game more dan
gerOus than ever. Walter Camps original
idea in the 1O-yard rule was 10 have more
OF a running and kicking game. and that is
what would have come about, even more
than has been the case. IL that rule hadn't
been vitiated by lot OF other experiments.
Of which, in my opinion. only the one
legaltzing the onside kick has proved vaIu-
able enough 10 deserve permanent place
in the code. This isn't 'reactionary' talk.
was glad to see the revision of 1895 and
will be just as glad TO see further revision
this year. But I don't want to see the ex-
perience and the lessons OF the last three
years misinterpreted and wasted. The
thing 10 do is to open up the general play.
but restore TO the play in the line the CO.
hesiOn lost through the neutral zone
To revert TO the mass play. It's the
steady pounding away at one man. the
gradual weakening OF a particular spot in
the wall Of an opposing teams defence. that
works the mischief. Do away with that
Eliminate the dragging and pulling along
Of players in plays at the line. Make il all
more a matter Of direct uuaided effort.
That can be done without hurting the
game. Piling UP will be stopped the min
Ute man IS forbidden 10 drag a player of
his own side along. Interference is
necessary part of the game and doesn't
cause accidents anyhow. II a 15-yard rule
Will work out the idea OF the original re-
vision, all right. I personally do not think
1t is needed. il the defending team is helped
a little by the abolition OF the forward
pass and the neutral zone. Those changes
would be pretty nearly equivalent 10 max
ing the distance 10 be gained fifteen Yards"
The suggestion that officials receive power
10 order an exhausted player from the
game has been welcomed less by men OF
experience as referees than others inter-
ested. one man who mas held the whistle
a good deal said yesterday that he would
never undertake % act as referee If such
duties were imposed upon him. 1t isn't
the fear OF being charged with discrimina-
ton against team in deprivIng it Of
player that would worry ne" said he. 1t
would be the feeling that / was responsible
for what might happen 10 any player Sup
pose man l allowed TO pay were hurt
and died? Think of the position a referee
would be in in case OF such an accident
That work ought to be left 20 the trainers
The rules committee : likely to divide
pretty sharply on the question Of the for
ward pass. IL is understood that there Is
already an element opposed 70 the play
and another that wants more protection
for the man receiving the toss. with a pro-
vision for a fair catch. as IN the case OF
punt. without. of course. the privilege Of a
free kick This last suggestion would elm
mate the direct and visible dangers at
tached 10 the play. but Il would not make
II any easier for the tackles Any removal
OF restrictions now imposed tn the forward
pass would make it harder rather than
easier for them. The more varied the at
tack the greater the decentralization pro-
O.