The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-12-05

uleS adopted by the conference.
fNhen the afternoon Atlanta paper
tbs displayed in the conference, the
UQdy took, an emphatic stand and went
record as refuting the alleged
1Rrges.
The Interpretation came about in a
&fAcussion o. the way in which the
~Dnference teams could enforce the
11les in playing against teams In the
Immediate section which did not con.
brm.
Byrd declared that II would be i'm
nssible to make teams that played
(pnference elevens conform to the one
lear rule. He declared that In the
sst. with institutions that had pro-
lhssional departments, 1t was possible
Or men to register in law or medicine
&lid play football in their freshman
ear without actually attending
4asses during the football season.
H. Talked On>Rule.
byrd said that it had been done In
DE past and that 1t was again pos.
4ble. He included his own institution
d show that men could register and
l1ay IL the freshman rule was not
q rictly enforced. -
IL. further maintained" said Byrd,
HAT Maryland University had a per
Oct right to play Georgetown, George
Washington, Hopkins and Catholic
University, although these teams do
rpt at present conform wholly to the
cbpference rules, If Georgia Tech
c$pld play them.
ArIn other words, the rule barred
Maryland from playing these teams in
Z n section, but permitted Georgia
1ech to play Georgetown, as George
txwn was not in the Georgia Tech iE,-
rNediate territory.
i~This. restriction was entirely un-
fir to Maryland University, and I
fit that we had a perfect right to
nay Geor getown and the othe.s in our,
territory II Georgia Tech could play
q lem without making them conform
the Southern Intercollegiate A. A.
r91ing.
III had already discussed the matter
d \ Georgetown Maryland game with
tie Georgetown coach. / knew
Georgia Tech and Georgetown were
taking a game for next season.
Fit was manifestly unfair to allow
Georgia Tech to play Georgetown. not
al member of the conference, and
c rnins rum a territory not immedi-
htcly adjacent to Atlanta, and to pro-
hybit us from playing Georgetown be-
c4use 1t was in our territory.
Report CARRIED.
f~The report was garbled. said
HAT In he past men had registered in
Professional schools, had come out for
football and played without attending
Kisses. and 1 thought the one-year
de would stop this. 1 made no
c1argcs against Georgetown or the
Navy Or any other institution for that
natter although / knew in the past
hat su. h q procedure had been fol-
|CSved and that with institutions not
fQlo wing tho one-year rule such q
Hing .ould again happen. / pointed
o0t shat II could be done with Mary
Iahd unless the one-year rule were
lH effect.
~ sod nothing about Georgetown
that d.dn apply to any Of the others
if5the one-year rule were put through
az II STOOD" said Byrd.
closely following upon the decision
81 the Southern colleges to adopt the
s9iWest eligibility rules comes the
D announcement that Catholic Univer-
Sly has passed the so-called freshman
rQe, and that the athletic board Of
University has passed. the
SINE rule.
The Georgetown rule will be handed
tdwn to the students to be passed
D. ION at later date. George Wash
lnkton has similar ruling coming up
frbm the student body for considers
lt4n by the board of managers.