Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-11-12
CRITICISM Is UNFAIR.
Waterloo Paper Charges MarshaIItown
With unfrisndIy Conduct


With UnfrisndIy Conduct
The Waterloo Reporter. in Its ac-
count of the football game in this city
Saturday between. West Waterloo and
Marshalltown, charges the local stu
dents with unfriendly conduct toward
the visitors and the officials of the
game. with showing partially in their
decisions; The Reporter say1sstn <part:
"a special car carried a half hundred
rootefs to ,Marshalltown to see the
West High game and the gloom was
intense when they arrived home last
evening after seeing their team go
down to defeat before an inferior
team. The West High boys played an
exceedingly weak defensive game, al
lowing Marshalltown backs to gain all
most .at will in a broken field. the
tackling being exceptionally weak.
THEY were also forced to submit to
Ions string of penalties at the hands
of Referee Neiman Of Drake, and the
unfairness Of the officials took the
heart out of their play and the offense
was away below standard as a result
Theirlonly touchdown came in the Sec
ond quarter, when a series of line
plunges advanced the ball from tho
center OF the field to the Marshalltown
yard line, where Chapman crashed
over guard for a touchdown.
West High school authorities are
very much incensed over the treatment
accorded the team and rooters who
attended the game from here Saturday
and it is possible that athletic rela-
tions will be severed with the high
school at Marshalltown as a result.
Waterloo players and rooters were
for for Ire nd mis- ell OF
the hands of Marshalltown High sup
porters and 1t Is probable that such
treatment will be investigated by high
school authorities"
The above account of@the game is
most unfair and doubtless, is actuated
by some one who wished to explain the
defeat OF the Waterloo team. The Re-
porter had no representative at the
game. The Waterloo Courier sent re-
porter here and his account does not
SAVIOR of any such charges. The only
incident that might have given cause
for any criticism whatsoever was the
action of a number of spectators who
resented the coarse work OF Ashley, of
Waterloo. as head linesman, which re-
suited in threats to "get him." These
threats, were not made by stu
DENTS however. No stones or mis-
siles were thrown and the Waterloo
crowd was treated like gentlemen and
ladies', and their conduct, 1t may be
Said in all fairness was such as to en-
title them to such treatment. The
Waterloo contingent was made up of
loyal boys and girls who cheered their
players to the finish, and many ex-
pressed themselves after the game as
being surprised at the strength of the
n kn1l I,,x I,,,s< kH.nA
the better team won.
AS to the work Of the officials no
fair-minded spectator could have found
any fault except with the work of Ash
ley, which was so glaringly unfair. The
charge that Waterloo was repeatedly
penalized is unfair, for the report Of
the game, play by play, shows that
Watefloo was penalized but twice thru
out the entire game, for a total of fif-
teen yards. On the other hand Mar
shalltown was penalized no fewer than
eight times, for total Of thirty three
yards. Three of these penalties were
within their own five-yard line, in
ffcted. by Ashley, on Waterloo's fourth
down on each occasion, which resulted
in forfeiture OF half the distance to
the goal line. ~
According to a Waterloo student
Ashley had never ofEiciated in game
before. According to another Waterloo
had expected, on the strength of the
Observation-Disclosures City game, to win
easily. not taking into consideration
the fact that the second team played at
Iowa City. AS to the relative merits of
the two teams the score fails clearly to
show -Marshalltown;s superiority, -
Watessoo was outplayed in every de-