Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-10-23
Coach Explains Peculiar Play
*'+ *s*
Heisman Writes About Rules

tention in just this shape. Instinct
lively | knew there ought to be rule
covering the case, but never before
had | noticed it just that way in the
rule book. The points are well worth
bearing in mind.
EVER since the rule against hurd-
- ling came into existence there
has been much debate and specula-
ton among football men in the South
as to just what constitutes hurdling-
Notwithstanding the rule makes Sc
rious attempt to define the act.
In the Eastern colleges this con-
fusion does not exist, for it is well
known there just when and why this
rule was introduced. The point came
up at the time the great halfback
Weeks was playing at Columbia Uni
versity. Columbia had a play in
which Weeks, after getting the ball
from the quarterback, simply ran to-
ward the line at a given spot, leaped
high in the air and shot out his feet
toward the opposing rush line. AS he
leaped his backfield companions would
catch their arms under him. hold him
up, and smash him with both feet
foremost (and both CLOSE To-
GETHER) against the opposing line
1t was a terrible play and danger
GUS in the extreme to the opposing
players. In endeavoring to legislate
it out of existence the committee
could find no other way or words to
describe it and similar methods of
projecting both feet foremost than
those that now stand in the rule. But
such hurdling as Weeks did and as
was contemplated by the committee
when ruling 1t out has never been
seen in the South on any team, hence
we have difficulty down here in grasp
ing just what abuse the rule was
meant to correct.
Frequently we see back making a
huge step over PROSTATE men in the
line, and forthwith half the folks in
the park set up a cry of hurdiing. But
so long AS it is stepping 1t is NOT
HURDLING. If the runner thrusts
out one foot ahead of the other, then
it is step and not hurdle. Hurd-
ling is really broad jumping, but
STEPPING is not broad jumping.
Thus may one know the difference.
I AM told of a Southern team whose
quarterback punts the ball high in
the air from his position close to
snapper. The other backs then run
down under it, and. having been be-
hind it when 1t was kicked. and being
therefore onside, they signal for
fair catch" and claim that no one Of
the opponents has a right to interfere
with this attempted fair catch.
Can a team do this? In my belief,
no.
A team CAN make fair catch OF
it's own punt in one condition on a
football field but UNDER THAT
ONE ONLY. That Is the case Of
punt out after touchdown has been
made.
In this case the remaining ten men
Of the punter's side stand out in the
field of play and they all have the
right to make a fair catch OF the punt
out But Dy reading carefully sec
ton Of Rule VI It will be noted that
this is the ONLY case specified where
team can make a fair catch of its
own punt, all the other cases of fair
catch being required to fall under the
head Of catch made after one of the
OPPONENTS has kicked the ball.
Were it otherwise we should have
occasionally the anomalous situation
of one man from each team signal
ling for fair catch OF the same ball,
and all the other players Of both
teams compelled to keep hands off
while everybody watched with bated
breath to see which of the two was
going to get the catch. And then at
once would arise the point Of the
whole thing that each Of the two men
signaling would necessarily have to
interfere with the other when the ball
came down, yet as each was entitled
to get it If ne could. how could he he
blamed for interfering with the