Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-12-03
BY w. w. ROPER,

Coach Princeton University foot ball team
Written exclusively for the Washington Star.
PHILADELPHIA, Pa, December p
Two years ago there was an almost
unanimous demand from the heads of
most, if not all, the large educational
institutions in the country to change the
foot ball rules then existing. This de-
mand was made on the score Of the
danger Of the game.
When the rules committee met in the
winter of 1910 their main thought was
How can we make foot ball less dan
gerouS for those participating in the
game?"
They quickly reached the conclusion:
Abolish the rule allowing assistance to
the man carrying the ball"
The last two years demonstrated the
wisdom of this legislation. Foot ball has
become safe-that is, as safe as any
game can be where there Is physical
contact among the players. Foot ball
today is as safe as base ball, hockey or
basket ball and more SO than wrestling
or boxing.
In the last two years at Princeton on
the varsity and freshmen foot bail
squads, numbering over a hundred men,
there has been one serious accident, a
| broken leg. On base ball and wrestling
teams of the past season men have been
prevented from play ing Dy Oh q
more serious nature.
| lay this emphasis on the necessity of
maintaining the safety OF the game be-
cause, in my opinion, there should be no
| meddling with the rules which prevents
assisting the runner. This rule should
hue and cry in some quarters to change
the rules. And, while the foot ball rules
lneed some alterations. they also need
| simplifying just as badly. There are
1 had svfA nfsstS ton
and too many artificial restrictions in the
rules.
And one Of the most important things
to be considered Is the jurisdiction OF
officials. In the first place. there are
LOO many under the present rules. Three
competent officials are plenty The umpire
has too many duties as 1t is, and he Ger.
| tainly should be relieved from the arduous
job of keeping time. In the last minute
or so of each quarter he Is practically
able to do nothing else.
Secondly, why make ball be kicked
from a point five yards behind the line
of scrimmage, and why make the kicking
team onside after the ball has struck
in the field Of play twenty. yards from
the line of scrimmage, and not onside
after the ball has gone nineteen yards
and a half? Is this not absolutely ar
artificial ruling?
Could not the restrictions hedging In q
kicked ball be removed? Would not 9
touched the ground both teams were on
side, fill the bill much better? This
would encourage a return punt and ever
a return kick off. In these two plays
the scoring possibilities would be many
and varied.
Why allow the team kicking OF In the
first half to do so in the second? In 9
game between two evenly balanced
eievens losing the toss means that your
chances OF scoring are lessened nearly
90 per cent
Should the forward pass be kept? There
are many who favor its retention and
many who believe it should be eliminated.
To my mind the forward pass is a de-
parture from foot ball, and today Is SO
hedged about by technicalities that 1t
merely serves as buffer on the defensive
backs in certain quarters Of the field.
Ii the forward pass must be retained let
the rules be so modified that 1t is at
least possible to make a pass with a
fair chance of success, and do not re-
strict it to five yards behind the line Of
scrimmage.
The most important change will no
doubt have to do with the number OF
Yards to be gained and the number OF
downs allowed. Steady rushing should
not be encouraged too much. In my
opinion three downs are ample. AS to
the distance, it should De uniform and
whole length Of the field. Might bot
eight yards be a happy medium betwdkn
ten of the present day. and five Of the
old gamer