Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-03-24
ARGUMENTS RIFE
REGARDING CHANGE
FOOTBALL RULES

Football is being kicked around
again with the members Of the inter-
collegiate rules committee pitted
against leading coaches over the eff
ficacy of penalties against forward
passing plays announced by the an
nual committee meeting Saturday.
In December the National Asso- :
citation of Football Coaches decided
that the game was firm as II stooo
and that the forward pass especial
ly was the proper thing. Ihers
were intimations from members o,
the rules body that the oVerheao
game would be given approval.
Then the committee went INTO
"huddle," called a few signals anu
"booted" far into the coacnes
ritory by ruling that only one IN
p,ete forward pass would be al
lowed in a series of plays without
nena1ty and that the second ana
mid unsuccessful efforts would
cost the throwing team five yards.
Bob Zuppke of Illinois, Lou Young
IF pennsylvania, Jesse Hawley OF
Dartmouth, Fielding Yost OF Mich
ioon and DR.. ]. w. Wilce or ONO
State have offered criticism, WINE
Tad Jones of Yale, Fred w. moore
of Harvard, Bill Roper of Prince
ron Alonzo Stage Of Chicago ana
G. ". Savage Of Oberlin, members
~ the committee. have spoken III
defense. ,,so
Jones of the committee, who also
4. coach of Yale, and Yost, VINO Is
only a coach, do not appear TO nave
snv great interest in the combat 1or
they agree that the rules changes
will not affect the game mater1aiy.
"A five yard penalty is not going
to mean so much, especially as the
team in possession of the bali can
Kick on the fourth down." Yost said.
Jones argues: 1.-The effort of plac-
ing a five yard penalty on each IN
completed pass after the first one
should add a greater premium to us
execution and have tendency 10
check it's indiscriminate use. IN
MANY cases it should have the Ell
feet of speeding up the game"
In brief, the arguments OF the
coaches follow: D., ~
Jess Hawley. Dartmouth. - The
new rule penalties the use or the
forward pass to an extent Whlcn VIII
deprive it of it's present uses ana
again relegate it to last resort.
And a five yard penalty will mean
nothing to a team trying desperate
" to win in the last five minutes.
I'm sorry to see it.
Robert C. Zuppke, Illinois.-Im-
position Of penalties for incompleted
passes is a mistake because 1t Will
make the game less daring and less
interesting. Another effect will be
to make the officiating more cum
bersome. Many more five yard PEN
alties will have to be stepped on.
Lou Young, OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
err than discourage long and 1ndls-
criminate passing late in the game,
I really believe it will tend to en-
courage more throwing OF the pail.
1t looks as though the check was
aimed at some of the colleges ana
universities that have been too pro-
ficient with the passing game.
DIR. J. w. Wilce, Ohio State
Restricting of the pass will detract
from the spectacular features of the
game and will place a greater bur-
den on the coach who annually Is
asked by alumni and press for more
varied offense styles. / am some
what disappointed.
And this is what the committee
members have to say:
Fred w. Moore, Harvard.-The
forward was tending to over-balance
the game. Football was resolving
itself into a game of basket ball ana
the new rule was adopted to curb
the so-called wild passes which usu-
ally feature the end of a close game.
1t will not affect the use Of legiti-
mate forward passing.
w. w. (BilD Roper, Princeton
The new rule is a good thing. Be-
ing a member of the football rules
committee, naturally am in favor
of it.
"A. A. Stage, Chicago.-New rul-
ing& will not affect the team that
uses the forward pass legitimately.
There is no penalty for the complet-
cd pass.
c. w. Savage, Oberlin. The
change was unanimously agreed
upon. The new rule will have a
deterrent effect on the indiscrim-
mate throwing of passes near the
end Of the game. The change is not
radical; 1t is as slight as was posi-
BILE to make without disturbing the
balance Of the game.