Evening star., 1920-11-21
HARVARD DEFEATS
YALE ELEVEN, 80,
ON FIELD GOALS
Buell. Twice and Horween
Boot Ball Over Bar in
Stirring, GrueIing Game.

NEW HAVEN. Conn.,, November o.
Repulsed repeatedly in their attacks at
the Yale goal line today. Harvard re-
sorted to kicking offensive. and. with
three field goals. by Buell. in the first
ana fourth periods and Horween in the
third. defsatsd the Ellis by score Of
s to 0 In the annual foot ball combat
In the Yale bowl.
Ihs c0dtest witnessed by close 10
$4,000 spectators, and the thirty ninth
between the two universities since 1875.
was remarkable exposition of the
comparatively modern open aerial game.
While loosely played at times. it fairly
bristled with thrilling forward passes
and sweeping runs. which, time and
again brought the thousands Of Grim
son and Blue adherents to their feet as
though the occupants Of the vast bowl
were being manipulated by system
OF wires such as are used in puppet
shows.
Game savagely Played.
The defeat Of Yale. while not unex-
pected, took most unusual turn, due
to the ragged but savage defense Of the
Ellis, who, facing a far more finished
foot ball machine. refused to be awed
by the gridiron juggernaut Of Harvard.
Hurting their bodies in front Of the
Crimson charges. or leaping up on
lodging and squirming runners, the
Yale players battled 80 savagely that.
although the Cambridge clan several
times drove the Ellis back to the shadow
Of their own goal posts. touchdown
was beyond the physical ability Of the
Crimson eleven led by Arnold Horween.
In this crisis Harvard fell back upon
the kick for field goal, and three times
out of five tries booted the ball between
the uprights, while Yale. defeated but
not disgraced. left the field with the sat
isfaction Of having partially checked its
greatest rival in a triumph that was
considered such foregone conclusion
that Harvard cohorts were offering odds
Of three to one before the game. with
few takers.
Both Strong ON Defense.
Both teams showed a stronger defense
than attack, and this was particularly
noticeable in the case of Yale. which ap-
parently had assimilated the lesson Of
the Princeton defeat and followed the
ball with commendable zeal. Harvard
found it reasonably easy to gain ground
between the 25-yard line. but once
within striking distance of a touchdown
the Yale line and secondary defense
stffYened and held their rivals charges
to small gains, which necessitated kick
ing. The Blue, however. failed to de-
velop anything in the way of a decep-
tive attack. and almost all it's line
;; plunges, end runs and passes were dag
. nosed and held to failure or small
gains.
Harvard outplayed Yale in almost
every particular as team, but the in
dividual efforts of the Eli eleven Offset
this team advantage to a considerable
extent. Harvard gained 210 yards in
ss rushes; Yale only 60 in %.
sixteen forward passes were flung
completed for a total Of 140 yards. five
were incompleted and two intercepted
Yale tried eighteen forward passes. Of
which fourteen were hurled in the
final period. OF these. four were COM
nleted for SO yards gain, twelve fell to
the ground and two were intercepted.
In punting. Harvard covered SIS
wards with twelve kicks. while Yale
made 600 yards in fourteen punts.
Yale ran the ball back from punts for
81 yards, while Harvard fell 10 yards
short Of this distance. This was Offset
to some extent by the running back of
kickoffs, wherein Harvard picked up rs
Yards to Yale's 50. Harvard lost 40
yards in penalties to Is by Yale. Yale
also lost the ball once on q tumble,
while the Crimson followed the pig
t-on,.nu>. u. Tent: ninth page.,