The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-11-18

JS4ASN, PO4A4VLI4b ali
accusatory digit at Grove, and at the
same time marking the spot where
the alleged interference had oc-
CURED, which happened to be on
the 2-yard line. Thus the Notre
Damers who seemed hopelessly be-
hind a moment before were now
back in the ball game up to their
ears. On the next play a fourth
string full back by the name of
Danbom bucked the ball over to tie
the score. With an alluring chance
to win the game Wally Fromhart,
the quarter back, missed the kick.
No Foul, Claims Davidson
Viewed from any angle it was an
unsatisfactory climax to what had
been a brilliant and dramatic show.
No team likes to win or lose on a
turn Of the game in which one of
the officials plays the most con-
spicuous part. The Soldiers and
Their supporters naturally were bit
davidson was quite sure no foul had
been conn itted and freely expressed
his opinion
Coach Elmer Layden of the Notre
Damers indicated how he felt about
\She game when he took the ball
away from his acting captain,
Shakespeare, and handed it to Bill
Shuler the Army captain. Shakes
pe2re had won the ball on the flip
of coin. In handing the ball to
sShuler, Layden said. You fellows
deserve this. We were lucky to even
tie your bunch"
And as the game was played they
were lucky. They were lucky the
field judge saw the interference Of
there was interference and that he
had the gumption to call it.
Rules are put in the book to be
enforced and officials are put on the
field to penalize attractions. All of
which is fair enough. But there is
something alarming about the
knowledge that the judgment of one
man on any one play can decide an
.entire football game. There can be
no question but that Mr.. Palmer's
decision cost the Soldiers a victory.
Penalty System Unfair
And yet, granted justification eX-
5sted. what was the man to do? No
team is ever going to score on a
forward pass if fragrant violations
are overlooked. And the violation
is apt to be all the more fragrant
where the ball game hangs in the
<balanCe. Still l think the penalty
system in football could be changed
to the mutual benefit of both the
attacking and the defending teams.
Under the present system penal
ties are inflicted with no cOnsidera-
ton as to the position Of the ball.
Obviously an offside penalty at the
50-yard line is not as disastrous as
an otfSide penalty at the 20-yard
line. l mean team can lose five
yards at midfeld without suffering
n severe setback but the loss of five
yards at the 20-yard line can wreck
n scoring attack. The penalties
appear to be the same but actually
One is much more drastic than the
other because Of the position of the
ball. What really happens, then,
is that for the same offense two
very different penalties, in effect,
are imposed
Different Story in Midfield
The penalty MI. Palmer called on
Grove would have been relatively
unimportant if the play had been
at midfeld. The Notre Damers
would have been moved up twenty
seven yards, the distance from where
the ball was thrown to the spot
where it was batted down, and this
would have been a substantial adj
vantage, but even so it would have
left them yards away from the goal
line.
Just what specific changes should
be made with respect to penalties is
a question, but l don't believe any,
body approves of system which
makes it possible for the men in
white to give tOuchdowns or take
them away as their Judgment die
Mates. Some sort of restraint would
seem advisable