New-York tribune., 1911-12-03

Two years ago there was an allnoy
unanimous demand from the heads OF
most. If not ALL the large educational in.
stitutions in the country 10 change thu
football rules then eXigtins. This de.
mand was made on the score Of the dan
ger Of the game. When the members "
the rules committee met in the winter
Of 1909 the main question was: How
can We make football less dangerous for
those participating in the game?'
They quickly reached the conclusion:
Abolish the rule allowing assistance 4,
the man carrying the ball"
The play since then has demonstrated
the wisdom Of this legislation. Football
has become safe--that is, AS safe as any
game can he where there is physical
contact among the players. Football
to-day is as safe as baseball, hockey or
basketball. and more so than wrestling
or boxing
In the last two years al Princston.
considering the varsity and freshmen
| football squads, numbering oyer-a hun
dred men, there has been only one seri.
Gus accident. a broken leg. ON baseball
and wrestling teams of the last season
men have been prevented from pia yinz
by injuries Of a more serious nature.
! Law this emphasis on the necessity d
maintaining the safety Of the game he.
cause in my opinion there should be no
meddling with the rule which prevent,
assisting the runner. This rule should
remain as il is.
There is great hue and cry N som.
! quarters to change the code. and While
the football rules need some alterations
they also need simplifying just as badly.
There are too many points that need in.
terpretstion end too many artificial re.
strictions.
One of the most important things 70 n
considered is the Jurisdiction of officials.
In the first place. there are TOO many
under the present rules. Three com.
| petent officials are plenty. The umpire
has too many duties. and he certainly
should be relieved from the arduous jot
OF keeping time. In the last minute o,
so of each quarter he is practically abs
to do nothing else.
Second, why make a ball be licked
from a point five yards behind the LIN.
OF scrimmage. and why make tho klck.
! ing team onside after the hall has
| struck ir the field of play twenty yards
/ from the line Of scrmmage and not on.
yards and half? Is this not abso.
lutely an artificial ruling?
| Could not the restrictions hedging In a
kicked ball be removed? Would not a
rule stating that as soon as a kicked ball
touched the ground both teams were on.
side fill the bill much better. This
wou,l encourage a return punt and even
return kickoff. In these two PLAYS
the possibilities Of scoring would bs
many and varied.
Why allow the team kicking of In The
! first half 10 do so in the second In a
game between two evenly balanced
| eleNefS lOSln- Ine TOSS means mat Nout
chances Of scoring are lessened nearly
fifty per cent.
Another question: Should the forward
pass he kept? There arc many wh,
! favor its retention and many who bs
licve it should be eliminated. To M
mind the forward pass is derartllr,
| from football. and is so hedgcd about h
technicalities that it merely serves asI
buffer on the defensive backs i'm certsr
quarters Of the field. If the forward
pass must be retained let the rules be
So modified that IL is al least possible Z;
make a pass with a fair chance Of sue.
cess, and do not restrict il To five yard,
behind the line Of scrimmage
The most important change will w
doubt have To do with tho number 4
yards 10 he gained and the number Of
downs allowed. Steadv rushing should
not he encouraged too much. In nv
! opinion three downs are ample IS 'n
the distance it should be uniform the
whole length of the field. Might not
eight yards be a happy medium betweca
the ten of the present day and the hu
Of the old game?