The Washington times., 1911-02-06

tack than last year. 1t may be argued.
OF course, that such a proceeding would
dispose of the value of the threat to
kick or forward pass.
Ihls VIII hardly be logic, as every
line-up would contain its own threat to
run of any play in the repertory of
the attacking team.
The Forward Pass.
But even such an arrangement would
not save the forward pass from the
charge that it was useless in ones own
territory. An intercepted forward pass
could be run down and the runner
caught II there were half the length OF
the field TO go, but with only twenty-five
yards or so OF room, 1t Is pretty poor
strategy to try the trick.
II one makes poor onside kick, the
chances are fully so to that it will
not result In touchdown for the oppos,
ing team. In the case Of an intercepted
forward pass. the law of chances hard
ly favors the team making the pass.
And IT Is submitted here that those
who are loudest in the cry for long
side. but not forward passes, forget that
these are almost as dangerous, and
would need almost the same amount Of
protection.
1t has been suggested that the man
who fntercepts a forward pass be al
lowed TO make the distance to the spot
whence the pass was made, II he can,
and no more. This is giving the defense
all that it deserves, for it not only gives
the defending team the ball, but con-
siderably more than II would have
gained by recovering the ball on fum-
Bile. and a bad forward pass is only that
much worse than a tumble that it is
more ambitious than an ordinary rum
ming play, and would yield first down
and perhaps twenty yards If successful.
Hsad A. Z, TkYaafarar
But II must be remembered that
the forward pass was introduced into
American college football not so much
as a possible ground-gaining play as
q threatener. to open the defense and
make the straight running game pos
sible. Wherein does 1t serve Its pur-
pose as a threatener inside the Is
yard line? Obviously II does not serve,
for the simple reason that under the
rules one cannot make a forward
pass across the goal line and earn a
touchdown thereby.
The result Is that we cross the 25-
yard line practically minus tho two
plays that were designed to make our
running game effective.
II Is next to impossible to make the
onside kick effective in this zone, but
is there any good reason why the
forward pass should not be used in
such an emergency?
Now with the danger of the forward
pass cut down to minimum. or with
the forward pass working and the GER
tainty that the running game is dead.
what has the defense to fear?
Even the threat of a drop or place
kick will not spread the defense, will
not send the defensive backs over
their own goal line. This condition
certainly should be released by the
rules committee.
All Was Not Football.
A word about the forward pass itself
and the charge that It isn't football"
Nearly everything that belongs to the
American game was not football at
one time or another. Our game is made
up of all the things that tradition
says one must not do In English Rugby.
So, after having jauntily swallowed
the camel of tradition, many followers
of the American game are now strain
ing at the gnat of the forward pass.
Oddly enough, these critics do not come
forward with a substitute, and instead
of seeking to make the play a better
one, they look only to have II abolished.
To repeat, the forward pass and on
side kick are threatened as well as
ground-g gaining plays, and both belong
I'm the game until we can find a running
game that will cross the goal line
without pushing or pulling or the locked
mass