New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-11-02
Continued from first page.

well bundled up. The wind swirled and
eddied around in the huge stadium In a
way that made handling punts. especially
for the Cornell backs. almost lost art
Apparently there was no way Of judging
the ball, and as result few punts were
caught both teams preferring to play II
safely rather than risk "A tumble.
Cornell was represented by small, but
loyal, cheering section. while Harvard. Of
course, had big one, which seemed TO
take a lot of pride. and rightly. in the
Crimson eleven, especially in the first two
periods, when II measured up closely TO
its full strength.
The full summary OF the game, which
is appended. is likely to be misleading
The analysis shows that Harvard gained
l42 yards by straight rushing for eight
first downs. TO l22 yards for Cornell for
nine first downs This In itself shows
almost an equality in the running at
tack. but II does not show that Cornell
gained much of its yardage In the last
period. when playing against Haryard's
substitutes.
II must be recorded however. that the
men from Ithaca gained fifty yards by
straight rushing In the first half against
the Crimson regulars, with an attack
that was varied and carried a lot OF
sting and drive. II must also be empha-
sized that the forward pass acted as a
boomerang for Cornell and gave Harvard
two chances to score from reasonable
striking distance. which might well have
been prevented II Brickley had not been
so wide awake or II Cornell men had
made the plays more accurately.
Barrett quite held his own with Hard
wick in puntng I'm the first half and had
much the better of the exchanges In the
second half when Willetts did some OF
the kicking for Harvard. 1t strikes me
that Barrett Is not far behind Curtis, OF
Dartmouth, and Tallman, OF Rutgers
who at present appear to be the leading
punters OF the season.
In running back kicks Harvard had
rather the better of It. particularly after
O'Hearn, Cornell's best end, was forced 10
leave the game on account OF slight IN
Jury This was partly due to the fact
that Harvard's blocking and interference
were particularly effective.
Cornell's chances Of running back the
ball were few, because the backs, par
ticularly Schiller were disposed to let the
ball hit the ground and then fall on H.
rather than risk tumble as previously
stated This was almost fatal in one case
when Hardwick got off long punt which
Schiller hoped would roll over the goal
line, but which, as a matter or fact, went
out OF bounds on CornelIs 2-yard line.
This forced Barrett TO punt out from be-
hind the goal posts and gave Brickley an
opportunity for a drop kick from the 81
ward line. which went wide by only few
feet.
Just to show that this same Brickley is
really human II may be told here that he
missed one other try at goal from the 40
ward line after he himself had intercepted
one OF Cornell's forward passes and had
then advanced the ball eight yards nearer
by two vicious plunges. 1t must also be
told that even from such distance the
kick was so accurate that the ball hit
one OF the goal posts and bounded back
into the field of play, counting, OF course,
a touchback.
To go back to the analysis OF the game
the summary shows that neither team
gained much ground by the use OF the
forward pass. while the play was a real
menace to the Cornell team when used
by itself.
Both teams played a hard game, but
a fair one. and only four penalties were
inflicted. one of fifteen yards against Har-
ward for holding. and three against Cor
nell, one for holding and two for off-side
play. The ball was clearly handled, too,
each side making only two fumbles.