New Britain herald., 1917-01-29
FOOTBALL CAPTAINS
ADVOCATE CHANGES
Penalty for Unnecessary Rough
Ing Should Be Made More Severe

A request issued recently to a num-
Der Of football captains and coaches
for suggestions as to changes in the
1917 rules has brought some interest
ing answers.
Almost every man written to has
mentioned the practice of "roughing'
the kicker, suggesting that a greater
penalty be inflicted for this offense.
Captain H. H. Dadman Of Harvard
writes: H
81 would suggest that a specification
should be made that the penalty of Is
yards for running Into the kicker
(Rule XIII, Section p be measured
from where the ball was put in play,
instead of from where the foul was
committed. Practically all kickers
stand at least ten yards back from the
line of scrimmage and, as the rule
reads now, the offending side is actu-
ally penaliZed a distance of but five
yards at the most. A player in the !,
act Of kicking is in a most Defence
less position and should receive as
much protection from the rules as IL
possible
Sharpe's Ideas.
Coach A. H.. Sharpe of Cornell
share the same view:
THE only change in the 1917 rules
that 1 should favor is that the rule for--
'roughing' the kicker be changed so
as to award the 15 yards from where
the ball was put in play and not from
the spot where the foul was Commits
ted" sf
Captain elect +. J. Dussosot OF
Dartmouth takes up the matter OF
"roughing" from the other side. He
writes:
II should like, to see the rule about
roughing the kicker abolished. There
are already enough rules against 9
roughing to make it unnecessary to 4
/ specify against certain play. Many
time man tries to block a punt
and in SO doing accidentally knocks
the punter down. "
IF the rule must remain in vogue,
however, it might be we'll to guard the 7
halfbacks who protect the punter as
well. Often a player will rough a
protecting halfback and make no at
tempt to block the punt"
What Dartmouth Thinks.
3. O. Gerrish, captain Of this years
Dartmouth eleven, follows up this last I
. statement Of his teammates
The present game" he writes. zig
| about where it should remain, I think.
, Except that there should be a ruie
against 'roughing the halfback quart
ing the punter, the same as that pro-
tecting the punter himself. The
practice of breaking through and
+, sp1lllng the protecting halfbacks IL
altogether unnecessary" 8.t
Another play about which comment
arises is the forward pass Captain a.
X. Black Of the Yale team woul(h
abolish it altogether. He writes: ia
1 do not believe that any changes
In the rules could help football Tha.a
only thing that could help is the
abolishing of the forward pass. Inn
the last few years football has beenM
more ike basketball, due to this. For-#
ward passing could be 1essened in i'm
portance if the ball was given to the
other side whenever grounded. This
I believe, would help the game a NJ
great deal and make it like the foot As
ball that was played fifteen years arc. TN
which was really football" ., b 8
Wilson Gives Views. n S
A second suggestion regarding the n
forward pass comes from Captain \
erect NJ. y. Wilson of Princeton and 4
calls for penalty on men interfering
with the ends. Wilson writes:
There should be greater penalty
Tor deliberate Interference with the
catcher Of a forward pass, and he IA
should be allowed the choice of taking sT
the l5-yard penalty or Of getting the S
pail at point the foul was committed. a2l
For example, it is not fair in the case
or a deliberate foul committed by an fs'
opponent on the defense, who sees X
that a successful 3O-yard pass is to be 4
made. He knocks down the man watt Y
ing to receive the ball, without trying
Tor 1t himself, and instead of a 90
YARD gain on the pass. the side in pos
session of the ball gets only a 15-yard
penalty. This interference with the
receiver tends to deliberately roughen
the play as it takes a man at bir u
disadvantage when he is not able to
protect himself"