Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-12-05
FOOT BALL. REVIEW
Season Not a Great Success,
View of Experts.
HARVARD HEADS TEAMS
Pennsylvania Ranked Second, Mich
igan Third-Pittsburg's
Great Eleven.
By Edward r. Bushnell.

| Not in q good many years has any loo'
| ball season presented a more curious
| mixture OF foot ball than that. wnicn
| closed with the Army-Navy game last
| Saturday. From the standpoint of good
| foot ball the season was not great sue
cess, but in reducing injuries 1t accom-
plished all that the rules committee had
hoped. It may also be admitted that the
same had a better year than most OF the
critics had predicted for it when they
| learned Of the -'adical changes made In
| the rules.
In the matter of injuries the fact re-
| mains that not only were there no fatali-
ties among the big college elevens, but
there were very few injuries, and none
of these was serious. The few deaths
which can fairly be attributed to foot
ball occurred on the teams whe.e imma-
ture and unframed boys and men were
the contestants. Under the circum-
stances nothing else could have been
looked for.
Last year there were two deaths on big
elestns. West Point lost Byrne, her star
tackle, in the game with Harvard, and
Quarterback Wilson Of the Navy. died
from injuries he received. in one of the
games. The University of Virginia also
lost player. Two of these deaths were
charged to mass plays and the third to a
flying tackle. To prevent repetition of
these fatal accidents the rules committee
passed a rule which eliminated mass
play by providing that there should al
ways be seven men on the line OF scrim-
mage and that the man carrying the ball
could not receive the assistance Of a
second player to advance it. The flying
tack was also barred.
Now that the season is closed the rule
makers are expressing themselves on the
worth of the changes made and sugges-
tons for the future. The writer inter-
viewed, a host of foot ball experts who
were at Philadelphia to see the Army
interesting and instructive. If the COM
mittee heeds the majority opinion of the
coaches and officials there will be num-
Der of important changes in the game
next year.
First of all most Of the experts seemed
to think that the man carrying the ball
should have the assistance Of at least one
man. 1nasmuch as there must always be
seven men on the line Of scrimmage, the
assistance of single man would not
complained Of. There are two objects to
be gained In allowing this limited assist
ance. This year 1t was found almost
impossible for two evenly matched teams
to make first down consistently. simply
because any sort Of defense could stop
the attack when man had to make his
way unaided. Allowing at least one man
to help would give the attacking side
fair chance to retain the ball without
being obliged to kick.
In the discussion Of the forward pass
DR.. Carl Williams of Pennsylvania, who,
with Percy Haughton Of Harvard, was
chiefly instrumental in saving this play
to the game, expressed most interesting
opinion. DR.. Williams is not an advocate
Of the forward pass on its own merits.
but insists that he made fight for the
play because after the committee had
passed a rule providing that there be
seven men on the line of scrimmage and
that there be no assistance to the man
possible to have advanced the ball at all
without the forward pass. According to
DR.. Williams. the forward pass itself did
not prove a consistent ground gamer, but
the defense and thus allowing the offense
to gain some ground. Had the defense
been able to play close to the line without
being worried by forward passes. nearly
every game would have been scoreless
affair. Both DR.. Williams and DR.. Sharpe
OF Yale expressed the view to the writer
that II the man carrying the ball were
allowed to receive the assistance OF at
least one man it would be possible to
limit the forward pass to back Of the
line of scrimmage.
Trainer Mike Murphy Of Pennsylvania,
who knows more about foot ball hurts
than any other man in the country, is a
strong advocate for q rule permitting the
runner to receive the assistance of at
least one player. Murphy bases his argyll
ment on the fact that the present rule Is
unfair to the man carrying the ball. The
runner, he points out. has but one hand
free to protect himself and he can be
tackled by any number OF men. Accord
ing to Murphy the backs this year were
bruised oftener than heretofore and he
hIameS this rllle for II
AS for the other changes most Of the
coaches are agreed that the rule permit
ting the substitution of q player at the
beginning Of subsequent period was a
worth of the four periods. Altogether
the men who know most about the actual
working out OF the new rules contend
that the committee paid too much atten-
ton to the public clamor against the
game and went farther than was heces-
sary in the amendment Of the game. It
need be no surprise. therefore, If this
year there is slight return to the old
game.
How the Teams Rank.
1t was matter for some disappoint-
ment that no team in the east won a
clean-cut championship. Unbiased critics
though, are quite unanimous in the opin-
ion that Harvard deserves to be ranked
at the head Of the list. Harvard did not
lose game this year and was scored on
only once. while Yale played her to a
scoreless tie. Cornell was the only team
wnich succeeded In scoring on Harvard.
and blocked kick permitted this
BY common consent the University Of
pennsylvania is ranked next to Harvard
Pennsylvania lost the first game of the
season to Urstnus. team which should
have caused Pennsylvania no trouble.
After that game the Quakers got to-
gether and played wonderful foot bali, not
losing single remaining game, though
being held to 0 to o tie by Michigan
Had Pennsylvania not lost her first game
her record would have been the same as
Harvard's. Were the University Of Mich
igan strictly eastern team the Wo;-
verines would deserve to be bra.keted
for second place with PENNSYLVANIA, but
as Yost's men won the western cham
rionship they should be satisfied with
this.
1t is harder matter to rank the next
four teams. Brown. in spite Of her over
whelming defeat by Pennsylvania by
900 and her 1910 defeat BY Harvard,
should be ranked above Yale. whose team
she beat 2l-O. yet Yale held Harvard
to 90 score. Like Brown. Yale lost
two games and was he'd to a sroreless
tie. II Brown is ranked third, then