Evening star., 1928-12-25
MOST Of COACHES
IN FAVOR OF STEP
Fading of Drop-KiCking and
Extra-Point Failures
Are Cited.
BY LAWRENCE PERRY.

K OST coaches to whom the
n writer has TAXED in the recent
N foot ball seaSon-a2d he has
talked to pretty nearly all OF
then-feel that the cross-bar
of the goal posts should be returned
to the goal line.
Drop-kicking has become practically
a lost art and the percentage OF 1all-
ures to kick goals after touchooWns
this season has been shockingly great.
Rules committeeman with whom the
writer has talked about this oooge tne
issue. They say, "Oh, you are one OF
those chaps who want the goal posts
in the middle of the field.
When pinned down to the fact thaC
1t is not advocated that the goal up
rights be on the goal line, merely the
cross-bar, they say that with the up
rights 10 yards back it would be an
engineering inpossibility to have the
cross-bar strutted forward so that 1t
would be where it should be, at the
immediate end of the playing area.
Not Difficult Matter.
ANY undergraduate taking an engi-
neering course could answer this state
y rnent practically i'll half an hour, gwen
the tools and materials.
concerning the restoration of the cross
bar will be made by any coach or group
of coaches, if only because they realize
that it is wasted effort. Rule changes
originate among the rules committee
men; outside suggestions are heard
with kindly, if somewhat bored, toll
erance and then very often ignored.
1t is merely with this idea-rather
hopeless, it must be confeSsed-that the
writer again exhorts the rules commit
tee to take thought that its attitude
about the goal bar is huring the game
very seriously.
And while on the subject of the
rules it should be said that the Off
side penalty by which punts. are re-
called is a decided detriment to the
game inasmuch as it breaks the con-
tinuity of a contest.
Nothing is so irritating to the spec
tators and so discouraging to players
as a beautiful booming punt which
goes for naught because of offside. The
issue of many an important contest
has been affected by this ridiculous
rule. What the rules committee should
do is to change the offside rule so
that the penalty for offside on punt
would be exacted at the point where
the punt lands. A penalty of IS yards
against Lne OHenOlng Ceam WOulu DC
entirely adequate and the game could
proceed without material interruption.
Then the wording of rule ten should
be changed; for as it stands at present
such an action as that made against
Marquette in the Holy Cross game
seems justified. 1t will be recalled
that the referee deprived Marquette
of a chance to try for point after
touchdown because of delay in getting
the kick launched.
Another Change Needed.
Rule ten says: ''If foul is COM
mitted by the side making the try (for
goaD it shall forfeit its opportunity to
score the additional point" Now
foul, technically. "is any violation of
a rule" Rule IA, section 8, holds that
"a delay of more than 80 seconds in
putting the ball in play after it is
ready for play" is violation of the
rule. Marquette delayed more than 80
seconds, hence, under strict interpre-
tation, committed foul. Yet it was
not a foul of sort meriting a penalty
so extreme as was imposed upon Mar
Quette. The referee had to build his
decision, as it were, synthetically and
it violated the spirit while it strictly
observed the letter of the rule. This
should be fixed.