The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-12-29
Nv MIKE THOMPSON.

Der of critics did not agree with the men
who spent a great deal OF time trying
TO give 10 the American schools the kind
of game that would eliminate injury.
There is no doubt in the minds of those
who have followed the game closely all
season that the game was safer and the
number of serious injuries greatly les
sened This, as far as I can learn, was
the main point the committee was after.
aud they should be given a great deal of
credit for their effort. do not think
any member of that body is vain enough
10 suppose that the rules as they stand
are absolutely perfect, and that no fur
Their Improvement is necessary. am
sure they all feel and have been working
quietly the past year for further devel-
opment, and they have all followed up
the game and watched the important
ones and realize the weak spots. There
will be many suggestions to this body if
one is TO judge from the number already
offered to the different men who have
been officiating all season. There cannot
be many changes offered for next season
without doing considerable harm 10 the
game. Some of the new rules this year
did not meet the approval OF the coaches
or the officials.
I do not think that many football men
viii be found who are in entire sym
pathy with the rule in regard to the %
yard zone. This seemed 10 be hard one
TO cover this year, and more than one
Reid judge wished that he had never
been intimately acquainted with the
game. This point more than any other.
IN my opinion, put heavy burden on
the officials, and especially the field
judge. II is absolutely impossible for any
man 10 have his eye so trained that he
can exactly judge whether a forward
pass went twenty Yards or nineteen and
half Yards; nevertheless this was ex-
acted The same would hold true with
regard 10 interfering inside that zone.
Many times players would call for inter
ference when they were not in a position
60 know whether they were in that zone
or not. Not only were the players minds
80 intent on that rule but also great
many officials, and the consequence was
that this rule has caused more Wrangling
between players and officials than any
other point in the code, This, in my
opinion. is bad for any game.
There Is no doubt. in my mind that
something viii be done with this rule. as
feel sure that it is not right the way
II is now.
Extra Officials Needed.
The way the zone proposition looks 70
me- if il remains, is that it viii re-
qulre extra officials. and / do not think
any game VIII succeed where a number
Of officials are called upon TO give the
decisions. There are some followers Of
the game now who think there are too
many men acting as Judges on the field
of play. With this open style it is
necessary 10 always have three men in
action. and the game as il is would be
ruined without a field judge. If the
game were TO revert TO the old days a
referee and an umpire could handle it
nicely. From present indications it
does not look as though il would go
back TO the old mass plays,
feel sure that nothing has prevented
injuries so much this past season as
the rule eliminating what was famil-
airly known as the hike play. that is.
the whole back field helping the man
through the line with the bail. In
my experience / have seen more
men injured in these plays than
any other / can recall, because the
men were in such a compact state
and the man with the ball so slowly
moving that when the pile would come
10 the ground, the men were in such
bent up positions that il was next TO
impossible for them 10 protect them
selves and hardly any chance for the
man with the ball. The new rule this
YEAR in my opinion seemed TO avoid
all this, although many contend that il
is next to impossible now TO score with
d line play.
[ would say that one year is not suffi-
cient to test a set of rules and / venture
10 declare that after this years expert
ence. many of the coaches have seen the
possibilities, and will be able to evolve d
scoring play. No doubt the game has a
great many possibilities that have not
been realized as yet, but they can be
looked for next year
There does not seem to be SO much OBJ
lection to the forward pass this year as
last season. although in some quarters
nothing good can be seen in II. 1t looks
TO me like a fine play, and / do not want
10 see it done away with just yet. as
feel the possibilities in this play have
not been reached
The smaller colleges took more liber-
ties with the forward pass than the
larger universities and in "a great many
cases got away with IT, OF course the
forward pass is a treacherous play, if not
Judged properly, and then there is great
danger in being too free WIN it, have
known a number Of good formations
around this play before a game. but l
nave watched for them in vain.
The on-aide kick about which there
vas so much talk last year, did not
seem to be IN evidence this year; it may
he the 30-yard zone was the stumbling
block. However, this always seemed to
me to be a rather pretty play. and a
rule to give il a chance would appear
10 me to be good thing. Under the
rules this past season, lIickers were at
a premium, and toward the last OF the
sessions the game developed into a real
kickers' hattie. DTOp-kickers were quite
prominent. Realizing, no doubt. the diff
ficulty Of the strong defense inside the
25-yard line, the last Of the season wit
messed tries for goals at any distance
beyond the center of the field. In several
Instances this last. season 1 have seen
games won on just this department of
the game, a touchdown, as it appeared
TO me, not even being thought of / hear
now that there are a number who de-
sire to see the points lessened for this
play. Under the existing circumstances
IL is a good stunt, and the proper thing
is 10 develop dTop-ldckers. In regard
20 the relative merit as TO the points
that should be given to it, / am not in
Always the Same.