Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1916-01-18

PORTLAND e. s. ~; NORWAY 4. 8. IS.

PoRrLAND h. 8. ~; NORWAY h. 8. 10.
Once more we regret to report, but II
must be done, and a. very few had ex.
pected Norway high to win over the fast
Portland High team, they will accept tho
result of the game In the best spirit pos
sible and feel that the home team did a.
we'll ~ could be expected. Certainly
Norway was not beaten two to one, nor
were the visitors able to secure lead Of
twenty points over them, and scores OF
this kind were frequently predicted be-
fore the game started.
Portland had one of the heaviest teams
that has played here, and BY comparison
the Norway boys looked like lot OF
grammar school players. OF course this
extra weight was decided asset to the
visitors, and although Norway tried hard
and were game to the end, they could
not prevent defeat at the hands Of team
that outclassed them In every depart
ment. -
The game had hardly started before 1t
was shown that Portland had one star
man around whom the play was conferred,
and Williams, playing as a guard so that
he would not be 90 closely covered, be-
gan to shoot baskets Immediately. His
ability to get over the floor fast and to
receive the ball from teammate while
going at top speed and toss 1t into the
basket, made one wish he was playing
for the home team rather than against 1t.
However, after be had secured three
baskets, the Norway team got wise to
the fact that he was the player who must
be guarded. Capt. Andrews gave up try
ing to score baskets and devoted bis at
tention to Williams, covering that player
90 we'll that during the last thirty min
utes of play Williams was able to get
only one floor goal. He continued how
ever, to show good form In shooting
baskets from fouls, and the large num-
Der OF fouls called on the Norway team
was just what defeated them.
There was no question but what Nor
way was fouling frequently, but the Wis
itors were not far behind In this matter.
Eighteen fouls were called on Norway,
while Portland got off with just half that
which shows plainly that the
visitors had the ability to do their foul
ing when the officials were not looking,
or that the officials were closing one eye
on the fouling of the visiting team.
Those who saw the game can judge for
as to the truth of this matter,
but to the writer it seemed as II Norway
was frequently penalized for minor in.
Engagements of the rules that might have
been overlooked, to the benefit OF the
game.
The writer does not believe in rough
or dirty playing, and the player who Is
dirty should be dealt with
severely, but he does believe that off,
cials should use some judgment in the
calling of fouls, and not spoil the inter-
est of game by continually calling fouls
for minor infringements, which are un-
and which would In no way
affect the result OF the game.
Again we would remind the fans that
the Norway team needs encouragement
rather than knocks. 1t Is possible that
mistake was made in arranging 80 strong
. schedule for team that was to be
made up wholly of young players, but
the schedule is arranged and the team ia
trying hard to hold its own with the
fastest teams In the state. The one thing
that seems to be lacking is team play
and q fast passing game, and II this
could be developed it would help lot.
The lineup: