The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-11-20
-
 |by Harry |Grayso!ll
Lifting of Interference Rule on Passes Would Remove Snap Judgment From Officiating

New York --- Nov. 20--Most foot ball officials would like to see the interference rule rescinded and the defense given carte blanche to break up a forward pass by any means sohrt of deliberate roughing.
 That would simplify things and end many borderline decisions which hinge on snap Judgment Ninety per cent of completed pass es are caught In the open with no defender within fouling range, so 1t might not be such a hardship on the offense if the receiver were forced to make the catch ct his own peril.
 Throwing the ball forward al. ways has seemed Q dubious way of gaining ground to disciples of gen. uine football. Why make 1t easier for the receiver by hedging him around with legal safeguards? Even If the defense was allowed to block potential receivers, some of them would sift through and complete q reasonable percentage of passes.
 Decisions involving forward pass. es are responsible for 70 per cent of the grievances entertained by coaches against officials" says 6 prominent referee.
 Rule 2, section 5, article 4. reads: During Q forward pass play there shall be no Interference with an eligible receiver beyond the line of scrimmage except such as may ocs cur where two players make sim. ultaneous and bonafide effort to catch or bat the ball."
 Wanted: A Mind Reader
 That contingent clause causes all the trouble. It allows the official considerable latitude In construing interference. He has to guess whe- ther the defender Is making bona fide effort to bat the ball or whc- ther he Is just trying to Impede the receiver.
 "One of my colleagues was black listed after many years Of referee Ing Q Thanksgiving Day series bee cause re courageously called fia- grant example of interference with q receiver, asserts the prominent referee. By ruling pass com- pleted he set up the winning touLh- down. tr takes nerve to decide against the home team.
 You recall the rumpus that en- sued in last years Army-Notre Dame game when Q questionable foul was called against cadet de- fense man. That ruling virtually handed Notre Dame an undeserved tie.
 "The most recent instance of pass interference was called against Hollingsworth of Dartmouth for impeding Hoxton of Yale in the end zone. A majority of eyewitness. es failed to detect any foul, and the subsequent ruling pleased neither side. Inasmuch as no score can Dc made on 2 penalty, the ball was awarded to Yale on Dartmouth's l. yard line. The Ellis muffed this chance to win.
 Dartmouth men were displeased because they were certain HollingS- worth had not interfered with HUx- ton, Eli partisans felt that they had been cheated out of the win- ming touchdown by foul commit- ted in the end zone. The penalty seemed inadequate to them. Puts Premium on Foul
 obviously here is a situation which invites and encourages foul, contrary to the spirit of the rules. Assuming that Hollings- worth was making a legitimate effort to intercept the ball and committed no interference in this particular plaly, the fact remains that a smart defender should al- ways interfere with receiver in the end zone if the pass seems likely to be completed.
 "The punishment doesn't fit the crime. It Is shrewder to prevent certain touchdown by fouling with the hope of holding the enemy on the l-yard- line than to attempt risky interception. Such advice may not be cricket. but in American football the end justifies the means if you can get away with 1t.
 "As Knute Rockne once re- marked: The penalty won't cost you s.G points on the spot but the touchdown will
 'Legalizing pass interference ...A..tS .....~gnl. oil kAAna 0WnaseNaasRe