New-York tribune., 1911-12-24
FORWARD PASS IN DOUBT
Parke H. Davis Says Rules Com.
mittee Is Divided ON PLAY.
SIDELIGHTS ON FOOTBALL
Princeton's Representative Ex.
plains Difficulties Faced in
Revising the Code.

| In an interesting article entitled "Ths
Forward Pass and the Neutral Zone ParkA
! II. Davis Princeton's representative on III.
football rules committee. has outlined in
THE Princeton Alumni Weekly for this
week the problems that confronted the
committee in 1909 and explains why tn,
neutral zone Of twenty yards was decided
upon. He shows IN his article that al n,
time It was thought necessary 10 protec,
the ends attempting to receive the forward
pass, and that II no neutral zone had been
decided upon the rule protecting the eud
attempting to receive the pass would IN.
terfere seriously with the defence TO
punt, on-side kick or a running play
Among other things. he throws some in.
teresting sidelghts on the nature OF N.
agitation against football IN 1893. whsn
Cadet Byrne's death at West Point and
other serious injuries brought football into
disfavor
He says that the acuteness Of the situa-
ton may be realized when the opposition
! TO football occurred I'm Prncetons own
| faculty room, where. IL is said, motion 10
abolish the game was lost by only two or
three votes. lie also remarks that tie
forward pass has owed it's life for the last
two years TO the slender majority OF two
votes on the rules committee; therefore a
new composition or new alignment OF the
committee this winter might POSSIBLY re-
move the forward pass beyond the nsce.-
sity OF further consideration
Mr.. Davis says in part:
oft will be recalled that in 1909 the IN
iuries and the fatalities OF the sport wers
so numerous that the existence of the
game was threatened. Through the efforts
Of lanes II. Moffat 90, who minutey In
yestigated each injury Of that season pre-
else and accurate data were obtained by
the committee as to the causes Of the In
iuries. These were. first, interlocked In
reference; second, the recovery OF forward
passes. and, third, flying tackles.
.1nter,ocked interference and fytug
tackles easily were met by peremptory
abolition Of these plays. The subject ot
forward passes. however engaged the COM
mittee for ten days and a large portion ot
the intervening nights. The difficulty Lev
IN the complexity Of the play. which Is not
isolated like a flying tackle or an inter-
locked interference, but intermiIed vita
several other plays. For instance, II end
r7lshes are injured (as many were IN isos
white attempting to recover a forward pass
Il IS easy to say that an end going down
the field to recover a forward pass ought
not to be blocked. The query. however, In
stantly arises, as II arose before the rules
committee, How Is II 20 be known before
the pass is actually delivered that the enf
Is endeavoring 10 recover a forward pass
He NAV be going down TO cover punt or
10 recover an on-sde kick. OF, more In
nortant still. he may be going down to In
terfere for a run following a fake forward
pass.
Hence, Il IS obvious that any rule pro-
tecting an end rush attempting 10 re-
cover a forward pass also Will interiors
with the defence 10 a punt, an on-side KICK
and running play.
1.-The cnIy solution OF the situation there
fore was tho establishment of a zors.
within whkch offensive players going down
the field should not be blocked. except when
acting as interferers In an attempt to ad-
vance the ball by a rush. It is apparent
that the forward passes must be limited to
this zone of protection.
But there was another consideration.
which favored a neutral zone for the for
ward pass. In 1909 a number OF players
developed who could throw forward passes
accurately from forty-fve 10 sixty yards
BY first employing two and three back
ward passes II was possible TO get every
available man down the field to participate
| in the recovery OF these long forward
passes This man9uvre threatened 10 40
| efna 4
punt thirty-fve yards, and generally lose
the ball, when II could forward pass MY
yards and stand good chances OF retain
| ing the ball? Furthermore, II forward
PASS could be thrown TO any point II was
obvious that an adequate line and oaeK-
field defence would require at least tr-
teen instead of eleven men, for weaken
| irg OF the line defence TO augment th'
backield support would invite pounding
attack on the line, which the experience
| OF 1909 proved was dangerous 10 NE anu
| limb Hence, the forward pass zone was
established aud fixed at twenty yards. Inc
requirement that kicks and forward passes
! should be delivered from a point five yaroS
behind the line of scrimmage was theA
necessary, in order that a rushing play
might be disclosed almost instantly. ms
prohibition OF on-side kicks within tii'
twenty-yard zone also was imposed. so az
not to complicate further the PLAYS pos
sble within this space
"Now. what have been the results IN
juries have been surprisingly lessened. Az
Princeton. with five times many men
playing football as baseball in 1911 thS
accidents on the gridiron. notWithstanoins'
have been less than those on the diamoho'
But football tactics have been reyoluuo"
ized With the abolition of interlockeo III
reference evenly matched teams can 10
longer advance the ball by rushing plays
i'm a series OF first downs. and win tn.
establishment OF the hye and twenty yaf'
restrictions upon the forward pass tns
game has become, so some allege, intoie'-
ably complicated.
The rushing game can be re-eStaniisheo
simply by increasing the number OF downs
or by decreasing the yardage, bur WIZ"
this change also must return the contihu.
GUS lire plunging attack. As the tor"a'u
pass has owed its life during the last Two
years to the slender majority of two votes
on the rules committee, a new algnihens
or composition OF the committee OF W.
quickly may remove the problem oil "'
forward pass beyond the necessity "
further consideration"