Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-01-10
May STOP REFORMS
Collegiate Association Likely
to BaIk Changes.
SUMMER BALL QUESTION
Old Bugaboo Of Colleges Again
Brought Up-Is the Training
Table Necessary?
By EDWARD B. BUSHNELL.

| - GOW AMI ~ oOoAN 6AAs
The efforts Of the men best qualified t,
bring about reforms in the foot ball rules
| are likely to be seriously interfered will
by that portion Of the intercollegiate foo
ball rules committee which was appoint
ed by the National Collegiate Athletic
Association. This body at its annual con
vention In New York last week decided
that the game as played last fan wa!
eminently satisfactory. and that for 101:
! the same rules should be enforced To thi.
end the association instructed its foo
Dali committee to oppose any radica
changes, either looking to the elimination
OF the forward pass of anything thai
savored of q return to mass formations.
before the season OF 1911 was half fin.
lshed the leading coaches throughout the
east began to express severe criticisms
OF the playing code. Particularly they
attacked the forward pass. and the best
critics Of the game were unanimous that
the championship games were played. SC
many resulting in 90 or fluke scores. the
belief was everywhere expressed that the
only way to maintain the popularity OF
foot ball was to abolish the forward pass
or to make some other radical changes
which would restore the proper proper
ton between the offense and the defense.
It is likely that when the intercollegiate
foit ball rules committee meets in Its
annual session within few wekes there
will be q division Of opinion as to whether
the rules should be let alone or radically
amended. It Is known to the writer that
there are one or two members of the
committee which represents the /. N. c.
a. A.. who are personally opposed to the
retention Of the forward pass The in
dtvtdual members, seven in number who
represent the old foot ball rules commit
tee have not all expressed themselves, but
the majority Of them are known to favor
the abolition of the forward pass, at
least. The suggestions Of the others for
ale amendment Of the rules include some
change in the number Of yards to be gain
ed In three downs. An alternative prop
osition with the same end In view is that
the number OF downs be increased from
three to four.
DR.. H. L. Williams of the University
Of Minnesota, the chairman of the n.
G. A. A. foot ball committee, in making
his report to the association contended
that the unsatisfactory result OF SO many
championship games was due to the lack
or generalshtp on the part of quarter
backs and to inferior coaching. His con-
tention was. that instead Of abol shing
the forward pass the rule makers should
remove all restriction from it. In par
ticular. he argued for the elimination OF
the 2O-yard zone. making q forward pass
of any length legal. He would also allow
the pass to be caught by any man OF
either side.
From present appearances it looks as
forward pass abolished have a hard
fight on their hands. Probably they all
will wish that they had gotten rid OF
this freak play when the opportunity
be remembered that at that time the
rules committee voted to abolish the for
ward pass altogether, and that the play
was only retained at a subsequent meet
Ing. when two members, DR.. Carl Will
lams Of Pennsylvania and Percy L.
Haughton of Harvard secured a reconsid-
Grafton OF the vote by proposing q plan
by which they showed that the forward
pass could be worked successfully. The
play did not work out as expected and
the opposition to 1t has been growing
keener every year.
The strongest indictment that has been
made on the forward pass is that 1t
destroys all proportion between the Of
Tense and the defense. Practically all
the big eastern teams had to abandon
the forward pass this year because it
could not be worked successfully. Prince
ton. in her last three games. did not use
the play once. It had been found that
the forward pass could not be used with
the other features Of foot ball. when
the defense was arranged to stop the for
ward pass 1t was simple matter for
straight foot ball to gain. And when the
defense was arranged to stop straight
foot ball then the forward pass would
gain. All of these arguments and more
VIII be submitted when the foot ball
solons meet.
The strongest argument which can be
urged in favor Of the forward pass is
that there was not single fatality on
the 1911 college gridiron. What few
deaths occurred were from games in
which the competing teams were school
boys or club men,. OF course, the OPP
ponents of the forward pass can point
to the fact that the freedom from In
jur.es was not necessarily due to the
forward pass. but the other element will
have a strong argument that the new
rules should be left alone as long as
they have reduced injuries and are COM
paratively satisfactory.