Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-02

NEW YORK, January 2.-Further as
surance was given yesterday that the
rules Of foot ball are safe from the sew
ton. Those who still are clamoring for
more or less major changes in the code
have been thrown for loss.
E. K. Hall, chairman of the foot ball
rules committee, read his report at the
yearly meeting of the National Col
legiste Athletic Association in the Hotel
AStor and the heart Of 1t was exposed
in these words:
LAS to the rules for the season of 1880
I think I speak for all my associates
in expressing the belief that the ex-
periences of the past year have disclosed
neither the necessity nor the desirability
of any material change in the code
This is especially gratifying as the work
of recodifying and rewriting the rules
on which we reported progress last year
is now nearing completion, and the
necessity of introducing new matter at
this time would be unfortunate"
That little word material" leaves
loophole for some minor changes. The
officials, who, after all, are the best
Judges, believe that a number of cloudy
points must be cleared up to avoid con-
fusion and disputes, but with the
coaches in meeting on Monday making
a strong recommendation by pro-
nounced vote against any changes, and
with Mr.. Hall expressing the opinion
that none is necessary or desirable,
the chances are all in favor of hands
of for another year at least.
The body of Mr.. Halls report, which
was we'll received by the delegates, was
devoted to reviewing the past season ana
explaining some Of the major changes
made last March, particularly on the
new tumble rule. The high spots follow:
Season Satisfactory.
From the point Of view of the rules
committee, the season of 1929 was
eminently satisfactory and gratifying.
Never have we seen more well fought,
closely contested games, such wide va
riety of strategy, less misunderstanding
and pickering about the rules or better
offlciating. Throughout the season
evidence continued to accumulate that
the changes which have been made in
the rules during the past few years are
steadily proving their value.
in no case has the evidence been
more convincing than in the case of
the 1929 tumble rule. At the begin
ming of the season there was much
doubt expressed as to the wisdom of
this rule. Most of the criticism was so
obviously based on lack of under
standing Of the real reasons and the OBJ
jectS 1t was expected to accomplish
that 1t seemed worth while to restate
the principal reasons for this change.
"The primary purpose of the rule Is
to broaden and strengthen the strategy
Of the attack by inviting freer back
ward or lateral passes from one runner
to another. The hazard before was too
great. If the pass was not caught and
the ball was fumbled the defensive
player, breaking through, might run
through an unprotected field for a
touchdown.
LAS a matter Of fact, it has very
much simplified the rules and this is
one of the reasons for It's present form
1t eliminates the necessity of difTeren-
tiating between an unsuccessful back
ward or lateral pass and an ordinary
tumble. The same rule applies in all
cases. II the ball strikes the ground
the opponent may recover, but not
advance 1t.
Reduces FIuke Victories.
Another Justification for the rule is
that it tends to reduce to a minimum
the winning of games by a fluke and
the neutraliZing Of an earned touch
down by one that Is unearned. 1t is
generally good. snappy foot ball when
an opponent RECEIVERS fumbled ball.
but 1t is usually pure unadulterated
luck If the opponent happens to recover
it under conditions that give him a
chance to run 1t back for q touchdown.
THE two principal criticisms of the
tumble rule were that it would tend to
promote fumbling and that 1t would
take some of the thrills out of the
game. The first of these Is absurd If
intended to mean that the rule would
tend to promote careless handling of
the ball. The loss of the possession Of
the ball Is In itself a serious enough
penalty to prevent carelessness. Pos
session of the ball often means the diff
ference between victory and defeat and
almost always means as much as the
loss of IS yards of distance. 1t may be
that there will be more balls fumbled
II the rule is successful in developing
freer passing, but 1t will be because of
more daring rather than more careless
handling Of the ball.
Legislation Is for the Players.
"As to the criticism that the rule
deprives the spectator Of one of the
great thrills in the game, 1t might be
appropriate to again restate the fact
that the rules committee has always
proceeded on the theory that the game
is primarily to provide wholesome sport
for the hundreds Of thousands of boys
who play 1t rather than to provide
thrills for the tens of millions Of those
who watch them play There are plenty
Of other real values that the spectators
can derive from watching this game of
foot ball that are infinitely more worth