Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-10-26


and questioning various
W coaches as to the new rule
which limits the penalty for
tumble, gather that this
rule was passed for the benefit OF the
coaches. OF course, in theory, 1t was
passed for the benefit of the players.
The argument was that 1t was unfair
to penaliZe a team in such drastic
fashion for the error of one man.
Some of the proponents OF the rule
wept copiouS tears while they were ar
guing for it. They told of cases where
a young mans entire college career was
blighted because he had fumbled foot
ball at a crucial period with the result
that the opponents scored touchdown
and won a game in the last few minutes
of play. While these arguments We're
being made could hardly restrain my
self from bursting into sympathetic
tears.
But, now that it is in the books, it
seems that the coaches were not
altogether diSintereSted i'll having 1t
passed. One of the franker coaches
whom questioned regarding the
rule replied, "Of course / like 1t.
That one is the coaches delight"
OF course, the tumble Is the error OF
one player, either the man making the
pass or the receiver. or 1t might be the
man receiving the kick. Obviously, it
is almost impossible for eleven men to
boot the ball simultaneously. At any
rate, do not recall any case OF one
team of eleven men fumbling Ill unison.
One correspondent points out that
any weakness on the defensive or the
offensive can be traced to one player.
He fears that If the tumble rule stands
they may 60 further i'll the direction
of making the game even safer Tor the
coaches, with the result that the foot
ball games of the near future Will be
largely static. He writes:
las you saw last Saturday, the new
tumble rule certainly takes q lot OF the
drama out of the melOdrama, II any,
of our present-day foot bali. But the
passion for standardizing is reaching
even into our sports, as you have said,
and soon the game may be mechanical
and uninteresting.
THE reason given for this ruling is
that tumble by one member OF q
superior team often penalties unjustly
that team. In other words, the more
fiagrantly player errS, the lighter
should be his punishment. Garry this
reasoning to the obviously ridiculous
limit and what have We? I'll tell you
Team A Is about to punt and
team AS punter IS dandy. How
ever, the right guard on team A
momentarily forgetS his assignment
while dreaming of the last rubber
of bridge the previous evening. Con-
Sequently, some rough opponent
fiattens him and, eluding the pro-
tecting backs, blocks the kick.
Nov this should not be. A slight
technical error on the part OF A team:
guard should not penalize his II
earnest companions, with the probable
loss OF the ball. to say nothing of thu
40 to so yards in distance. The Solu'
tion is that If a punt is blocked, owing
TO the negligence of lineman In block
ing. the kicking side shall be allowed
another turn.
"On defense, take the case of {
missed tackle. The defensive RICH
half has done wonderful tackling al
season and has shaken the teeth out @
the dummy and several scrub carriers
However, in a hot game, with dash
ing opponent cutting for the side line
he takes of on the wrong foot and hi
frantic figure merely scrapes the mole
skin (or silk pants of his enemy, VIII
dasheS on for many yards or maybe T.
a touchdown. Now this Is, obviously
a mechanical error, as 1t has beel
proved repeatedly that this defenslv
back can tackle. Therefore, II hi
fingers touch the man with the bal
the ball shall be declared dead at tina
spot, etc, etc. This is called 'touc
foot ball
In the last analysis If each and
every man on both teams carried
y out perfectly each and every assign
ment, 1t would be case OF the
irresistible force and the immovable
object. Every attacking play is q
potential, nay, inevitable, touchdown