New-York tribune., 1922-11-12

" Marphs sSAE4etz sae9 R5sss rsa ,gsas Un
IF = enlesder pennSylvania is'0 Lines. I5n"s.
nlan--s. N. Bankart Dartmouth Tirns
OF periods-Fifteen minutes
became more aggressive and the Har-
ton made a first down or two, which
vas most unusual. The play was large
! iy in Harvard territory. Princeton i'm
proved IN diagnosing Harvard's plays.
sometimes run from a close formation
OF forwards, sometimes with the Har-
ward line fairly widely spread.
Spaulding mufYed punt in the third
period, Stout recovered and Nassau had
the ball on Harvard's 30-yard line.
| Then, as most of the time, Harvard
smothered Princeton at the scrimmage
Princeton. The Tigers never failed, when
they couldn't gain in Crimson terri
tory, to carry the ball to kicking posi-
/ tlon, and Baker drop kicked goal
! from the 93-yard line. That meant
probable victory and, anyway, little
prospect of worse than tie.
Princeton had good opportunities for
! bigger score, but Baker missed the
rest of his drop kicks. Harvard's best
chances in the second half came from
| her ability to drive Princeton back on
kicks and sitter punch to her gun
ming game, but there wasn't enough
continuity of power to the latter to
make the most of the combination.
AS the game began blurring into
twilight, Harvard, hard pressed, face
to face with defeat, and put in bad
plight by OWENS muff on his thirty
yard line, was up against it hard. The
ubiquitous Treat recovered the ball for
Princeton. On fourth down Baker
tried and missed field goal The
oval went outside at Harvard's twelve
yard mark and here the Cambridge
men let fly with exciting fireworks.
Long Forward Passing Game
Long forward passing was their
game and dependence just then. A
! beauty of twenty five yards, ven to
Fits, was followed by lateral good
for five yards, This series of excit-
ing plays preceded by a few moments
, the finish. The passes became some
what wild, but between them and
eye to avert possible disaster in the
way of a sudden score.
The ball went to them again before
the game ended and of course they
held on to it until the fourth down
They were playing for time. Nobody
knew when some penalty might not
burst forth to set one side or the
oLDGI DdCk, lOI LHGIS was u pEQJ QSfOTl
of these and of all sorts except
Princeton suffered several punish
ments for delays, and the penalties
were simply further contributions to
hodge-podge football.
Harvard had q stronger running
game than Princeton, but, as said,
without continuity. Early in the game
Harvard was far better in open-feld
ifNis1 Eyrk .Stx N+s,,1. Il
peared. Princeton was more active on
q loose ball. Harvard had more men
down the field on kicks and was better
at running back kicks.
Princeton had been we'll coached in
coping with Harvard plays, and, al
though the Harvard backs were a
harder, more elusive running set. the
Tiger line did such effective work at
getting through and the secondary was
the ground couldn't keep up long
enough to acquire impetus.
The rather futile offense of both
teams and the completeness with which
the Harvard forwards enveloped and
smothered Princeton's attempts to
rush the ball were features of the
battle. Harvard's offense has had
more variety, but I've seen few games
with so little running from kick forma-
tion.
Princeton showed little in the way
of forward pass. 4 hop shift of the
backs, line shift and rather compact
formations were Princeton's tactics
for attacking,
Harvard's line charge was decidedly
good for the most part, uniform and
SO quick at times as to keep one guess
ing as to whether the men were ahead
of the ball. That was all right as far
as it went, but big factor in Prince
toms favor was the clever work Of the
Tiger players in sizing up and acting
accordingly for Harvard's intended de-
ception,
Tiger Backdeld outdone
Although the Princeton backfield was
outdone, the Princeton line fully held
it's own in the long run. Certainly
the Nassau ends did barring missed
tackles down the field early in the
game. They were down the field under
kicks faster than Harvard's, but at
times were in trouble down there, for
Harvard had better protection for
the receiver and interference for him
Treat played q strong game at tackle
line and open. He blocked passes and
fell on the ball and broke through and
made himself generally useful Once
or twice his blocking was bad, but his
activity and faculty of being in plays
made him a big help and CONSPICUOUS
figure. There was more range to his
work than to the tackles, but Eastman
was an interchangeable performer, too,
especially in the line. Time and again
he was on the Princeton plays mailing
the runner before he came to be much
of runner.
Hubbard did well for Harvard and
Afford was tireless, rowing defense
| for Princeton. The passing of Doth
center men was pretty good. Stoats
|, end playing for Princeton deserves
mention. 1t was the best of any end
under kicks, and if he missed his man
he hit and checked him. Both Prince
ton tackles stood UP nobly to their jobs
and as a pair did exceedingly well.
The Harvard center trio was stead