The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1961-12-01
SPORTS of TIMES
The BIC
Rhubdrb
By LOU FABRO
Times Sports Editor

After reporting on the Notre Dame-Syracuse
game hassle and showing a film CLIP OF the contro-
versial play, MICS Chef Huntley' commented dryly
that perhaps university and college administrators
ought to consider offering a course In football rules
to their law students.
In light of rules interpretations being made, 1t
might not be a bad idea.
1T MIGHT BE A STILL BETTER IDEA, how
ever. for the NCAA rules committee to clean out the
cobwebs in the football rules book and to eliminate
what Big Ten Commissioner Bill Reed admits is a
"glaring weakness" in the rules.
In case some of you football fans were off on an
African safari or, something and don't know about
football controversy of 1861, we'll tell you about 1t.
With three seconds left in the game and SYRIA
cuse leading Notre Dame, 1914, Joe PerkoWskl OF the
Fighting Irish missed a 56-yard field goaI'try. During
the play, however, a %225-pound Syracuse end, with,
ironically enough, the Irishsounding name of Walt
Sweeney, colGded with 1~7O-pound George Sefcik who
was holding the ball for Perkowski.
THE OFFICIALS CALLED A ROUGHlNG penalty,
marched off Is yards and ruled Notre Dame had
another chance although time had run out on the kick
ing play. P~erkowski's second kick sailed true for a
3-pointer.
set win over favored Syracuse and touched off a wild
celebration by Irish fans, but became the kick heard
across the country"
After studying a report on the crucial cali, the
Big Ten and Eastern College Athletic Conference
which assigned the officials for the game, ruled the
officials erred in allowing another play. Bill Reed OF
the Big Ten and Asst Bushnell, ECAC commissioner,
declared III q lUlHL StdLeHleHt.
"a FOUL DURING THE KICK, including rough
ing the kicker, will not extend the period as the ball
is not in the kicking teams possession" They based
their verdict on rule 3, section 6, covering extension
of a period.
At the same time, they declared the score couldn't
be changed because of faulty application of the
rules"
1t was noted, however, that Notre Dame could
concede the victory. Or, as they say in checkers and
chess, "it's your move Notre Dame" Irish officials
didn't feel that way. AS Father Edmund J. Joyce,
csc, Notre Dame vice president, put it:
at seems mandatory that a penalty be invoked.
We still feel that the officials made the proper de-
cision on the field"
Substantiating his stand is rule 2, section | of the
1861 NCAA football rules interpretations which says:
ALTHOUGH A FREE BALL, A SCRlMMAGE
kick from behind AS line is treated as though in pos
session of Team A if the penalty for ~roughing the kick
er lis accepted" This clearly supports the disputed
call and the Irish stand, 1t also conflicts with rule 3
cited above, indicating that the rules committee has
some homework to do.
AS this is written, Notre Dame still owns a 17-l5
victory over Syracuse. Notre Dame also is making a
formal request TO the NCAA rules committee for its
verdict on the disputed extra play" A ruling is ex-
pected anytime from now until Christmas.
In view of rule 2, it seems to us that Notre Dame
won fair and square. Because the call was highly tech
nical, somewhat questionable and SO decisive, we must
at the same time sympathize with Syracuse for the
Orangemen cherish a win just as much as the Irish.
SPEAKING OF QUESTIONABLE CALLS, we
wonder about the report that Big Ten and ECAC
brass ordered all five game officials to make no com
ment about the game. Why not? Are they afraid the
officials will reveal some t~op-level secrets?
Gus Skibbie, the head linesman who made the
crucial call, did defend his call, however. He declared
that it made no difference whether the foul was com
mitted before or after the kick itself.