The Washington times., 1932-12-09


1882 was the phenomenal ris
Washington University's Colon
Catholic University improved
its position in the gridiron world
and gained strength all along the
line.
Maryland, despite a compare
lively poor season, cannot be
said to have lost ground.
G. U. Loses Prestige
Georgetown, alone, of Wash
ington'S Big Four, suffered loss
Of prestige and this despite the
fact that she eliminated the
athletic scholarship.
Before delving into the &C.
complishments and failures Of
District elevenS during the sea-
son, it is advisable to discuss va
rious other phases Of the season.
Thanks to George Washington
University, attendance figures for
games played here were more
satisfactory than in 1881. Nat
urally, because of conditions,
there was a decided slump in
spectator interest in Georgetown.
However, such was not the case
with Maryland, while C. us
team was more popular than ever.
The modern plan Of substitute
ing freely in all games was
again noticeable this year in
Washington. G.. w. and C. u,
both, equipped with capable re-
serves, took the lead in this
matter Of freely substituting.
Officiating Ideal
Officiating on the whole was
much more satisfactory this year
than last. Some protests were
registered, but they were COM
paratively few in number.
The perfection of an organiza-
tion Of officials here was an i'm
portant factor in the improve
ment in officiating shown in
1882. The = officials this year
went about their work in a digni-
fled manner, and a decided inn
provement in team work by those
officiating was noticeable.
Catholic University ran into q
bit Of i'll luck in the matter of
officiating in several games away
from home. The nearest approach
to a protest from c. U. followed
the Holy Cross game. Spectators
complained of decisions in the
rgetOWn-Carnegie Tech game.
SpOrtSmanship Highest
SportSmanShip Of coaches and
players was of the highest order
in 1882. Student spectators
offended on occasions. as did nom
student spectators. Booing offic-
ialS, cheering after a penalty had
been imposed against an oppon-
ent, crowding on the field before
the game had ended, and insult
ing remarks directed at players
and officials were some of sins
committed against football. These
manifestations Of poor manners
and poor sportSmanship smeared
footballs eScutcheon a bit.
1t appears fairly obvious to
fair-minded persons that resent
ments, jealousies and prejudices
in the field Of college athletics
still prevail to some extent in
Washington.
Forward passing was popular
this season in Washington. G..
w. and C. U. utilized this style
of attack better than other teams
Of the District, the formers over
head being Of the sensational
type.
Attacks Balanced
C. u. and G. w. employed bal
anced attacks and did not place
undue emphasis on forward pass
ing, bucking, running or kicking.
These two teams also figured in
sensational local games, the for.
mer being involved in no less
than four while the latter ap-
peared in two.
The C. U.-Duquesne contest
was probably the best of the
year, from the standpoints of
spectators, coaches and critics.
However, the G. W.-Iowa, the
G. W.-North Dakota State, the
G. W.-Oklahoma and the G. w.
William and Mary games were
all hair-raiserS. The G. w. Okla
homa contest offered the best
performances by individual play.
ers in the execution of spec
tacular plays.
G. w. and c. o., and Mary
land to some extent, effectively
utilized linemen in the interfer-
ence. The first two named man,
aged this angle much better than
usual, G. w. in particular meet
ing with cleverneSS a trying con.
dition involving speed of line
men. These two teams also
ShoWed the best offensive line