New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-02
FORWARD PASS BATTLING
Rules Committee in Quandary
About the Play.
TAKES NO DEFINITE STAND
Suggestions Tried Out IN Prac-
tice This Spring Prove
Unsatisfactory.

ioIIrned in Philadelphia after midnight sat
urday, to meet in New York City on May
L. and Il. AS announced In the late editions
OF yesterdays Tribune, two important
changes were decided on-the limiting OF
the forward pass behind the line OF
ser1nrnage. and The reduction or the num-
Der of,yards to be gained by rushing from
ten to eight
E K Hall said that the members OF the
committee had to acknowledge themselves
baff1ed on the question OF affording the re-
ceiver OF a forward pass protection. None
of the advocates of the play could suggest
a remedy, and for that reason the restric-
ton was placed upon It,
Tie forward pass. a play in football
which was added to the game back in 1906.
has been the cause Of all the delay OF the
committee In coming together. The for
ward pass may still be said 10 be a real
principle In the game. but was added as an
experiment along the lines OF making the
game more open. During the past four sea-
sons it has had many advocates, because,
With the on-side kick, it made il necessary
for the defending team to form its defence
less compactIv than formerly. 1t was not
the fault OF the forward pass that the at
lacking teams did not work out more
open rushing game. but rather because OF
IL Weakened defence, caused by the ne
ces5ity OF the backfefd guarding against
forward passes, many teams chose TO use
plays that were heavily organized and
driven into unprotected rush line with
telling effect on the physical condition OF
the individual opponent.
The elimination Of rushing and pulling
the man with the ball and OF interlocking
Of the interferers for the runner were d.
rect siaps at the heavy mass plays With
these changes many, If not almost all, OF
the members Of the rules committee be-
ueved that the forward pass still had
province IN the game. But all agreed that,
even though no serious accident had hap
pened in tho play, it was very dangerous
one, because players coming down the field
watching only for the bail Wero unprO-
tected against being injured as the defend
ing players legally blocked them out of the
way. letting the ball fall to the ground
untouched by an attacking eligible player
thus making the forward pass incomplete,
which caused q great loss OF distance.
The constituents of the forward pass
idea, as WeII as the men opposed to II,
have spent hours striving 20 devise a sys-
tenn OF protection for the men who re-
ceived the passes that WAS practical Even
th@ men who insisted that tho forward pass
be retained we're able 20 agree on no syS-
tenn OF defence Suggestion after sasse=-
ton was made which On paper, seemed 70
satisfactorily solve the problem but ali Of
these, when considered and analysed from
every point OF view, were deemed made
quate and as making the game too complex
to be handled by any set OF officials or to
DO readily understood by the players.
at the March meeting OF the committed
the members not in favor OF the forward
passing suggested two plans 10 limit the
position of the defending teams so that it
would be more possible for end runs to get
under way than under the present rules. !
Il was suggested that the defending team
be allowed to occupy a lateral zone on the
field approximately as wide as that taken
by the attacking team. It was expected
that by thus making it impossible foi a de.
fers1ve end Or haIfback to play Wids ana
drive the plays IN toward the middle OF the
rush line. end runs could really be- made
more possible, and, because the teams
would be drawn toward the stdeg OF the
field, the players would not be so much
nnassed together, and the shock OF STOP
ping or attempting 60 stop plays at an
angle would not be SO great as now when
the plays more often are met absolutely or
nearly head OF.
This plan was tried in the spring practice
held at many Of the colleges, but not under
seasonable conditions, and although its pos
slbllitieS for variety and strategy Of play
were hardly worked out, the idea. was not
acceptable TO 4 great many Of the commit
tee even after it wds apparently decided
that 1t was practically useless to agree
upon conditions under which the forHs RI
pass could be retained in football
A subcommittee was appointed to 1orL,
out the details OF the changes decided on.
and was instructed to report TO the whole
committee BY mail before the New York
meeting. This committee Is composed Of
DR. Carl ). Williams, of Pennsylvania;
Crawford Blagden. Of Harvard, and F. X.
Hall. OF Dartmouth.
Definite action was taken OF the report
Of the subcommittee composed of 4. A.
stags, of Chicago: Dr. W l. Dudley, oe
Vanderbilt. and c. w. Savage. OF OberIln,
appointed 70 suggest plan to remedy the
excuses and eliminate the dangers incl
dent to scholastic football The committee
came TO the conclusion that most q the in
5uriea and fatalities which occurred in foot
ball we're the result of a lack OF rrcper
supervision by school faculties and games
between teams not evenly matched. The
subcommittee made tho recommendations.
1t recommended. among other things. that
games be under the supervision of older
persons in authority, that schedules be
made with the help and supervision OF the
faculty, that no game be allowed until the
players have spent at least two weeks in
preparing themselves. that as far as posi-
bic the ages and weights of the Opposing
teams be equal, that contests he limited to
one game week and that the halves be
limited 10 twenty minutes or less