New-York tribune., 1911-11-13

gained are Offset TO a large extent by pen
alties inflicted as a punishment to the man
who bunges the umpires would have less
TO do, the games would not be slowed up.
some dashing play would not be nullified
and the sport would be improved, not only
ethically but physically. 1t may be said IN
/ passing that all penalties are not the result
! Of unfair play. 1t is absurd, also. TO con-
tend that the team which is never onsld.
is the one that is criticised for lack OF
| aggressiveness.
| The Harvard coaches in general, and
Percy d. Haughton in particular, are criti-
cised by one reader of The Tribune for
depending too much upon fixed plans IN
carrying out certain plays and of running
the game from the side lines rather than
depending on a field general He expresses
his IDEAS in the following letter:
Percy Haughton and his assistant
coaches, and not Gardner Potter or som,
other quarterback, should be blamed for
the loss TO Harvard of the Princeton game
! this year and of the Yale game last sea
son. Poor generalship cost both, and more
will be lost Just so long as the coaches run
the games from the side lines. wllch Is
| forbidden under the rules. A quarterback
at Harvard Is so busy rememoerlng IN
structions and watching for signals from
the side lines that he has no time TO use
his head or follow his own initiative IL
has been said that Harvard lacks the
punch Well, Harvard will continue to
lack the punch so long as Haughton works
of football brains.
This criticism strikes me as bit over
drawn and not altogether fair, although II
is a fact that indecsion and questionable
generalship cost Harvard dearly, not only
in the Princeton game on November A. but
in other important struggles In recent
years. 1t IS possible that Haushton may
assume some OF the burdens of conduct
ing the game that rightly belong to the
quarterback, or, better, the field general
but II must not be forgotten that Haugh'
ton has been wonderfully successful In
building winning football teams at Cam
bridge, where others have failed. The loss
of one game in two years could hardly
have inspired such a bitter denunciation.
4 There is a quarterback problem at Har-
ward which is worrying the critics. II not
the coaches. Good field generals however,
are born, not made. and il is quite pos
shle that HauChton has been forced to
adopt the automaton method for the lack
of a Charley Daily, Howe or a Spracking
to lead the eleven. 1t IS possible also that
under the Haughton system even Char
ley DAILY would he confined and hampered.
could not help but feel "a year ago that
the wonderful power Of Harvard's great
football machine was wasted in midfeld
against Yale, and / feel Convinced that
Gardner was not trusted I'm the recent
Princeton game. which accounted for the
indecision and slowing UP OF the play when
quick. sharp action was necessary for fun
effectiveness This does not necessarily
make a case against the Harvard system,
although It does open the way 10 criticism.
Four of the seven more important foot
ball games played In this city on Election
Day resulted In tie scores, which empha-
sized once more the need for some change
in the rule to weaken the defence. Tie
games are most unsatisfactory. and there
have been more tie games under the re-
vised rules In one week than usually was
the case under the old rules In whole
season This is not said TO deprecate the
revision of the code. as the demand for
changes was Of a kind that could not be
silenced II is said. however. in the hope
that the stand-pat policy adopted by the
football rules committee last winter will
rot be followed at the next session. The
experimental stage is not past The game
may need a rest cure, but not until>t mas
had some more vigorous treatment
I am in receipt Of FIVE letters critcising
Gardner. the Harvard quarterback, for
poor Judgment when he'recovered loose
bail in the Harvard Princeton game and
was thrown over his goal line for a safety
touchdown Personally I do not consider
these criticisms fair. As told In The Trib-
une the day after the game. Gardner was
between two evils and had to think and
act quickly. In the first place, he had no
possible chance to make fair catch, as
was suggested by one self-appointed critic.
as he could not get near the well placed
punt In the second place, the ball took
an ugly bound and went bobbing along
toward the danger zone in the most puz-
zling way 1t is a grave question in my
mind whether it would have rolled across
the line for a touchback, whereas Gardner
had no choice of falling on it. as II came
TO him waist high. Captain Hart end
White of Princeton, were charging down
the field and II Gardner had let the hall
alone. in the hope that it might roll across
the line. the chances were In favor of II
being recovered by one OF the Princeton
men and carried over for touchdown.
All things considered. Gardner did the best
thing possible in a most trying situation.
Princeton deserved that safety more than
II did the touchdown from the blocked
kick.
.'The Harvard Alumni Bulletin under