|
1912 The 1912 season went well, with few complaints about the new rules. One game stands out and merits highlighting. The Army vs. Carlisle game was special for three reasons: 1. Jim Thorpe being Jim Thorpe. 2. A right halfback for Army by the name of Dwight Eisenhower. 3. It marked the introduction of Pop Warner's Single Wing formation. He had used pieces of it in previous games and in other seasons, but this was the first time he had put all the pieces together - an unbalanced line, back arranged in a parallelogram, and a direct snap to the halfback in the short punt (shotgun) position. As you can see from the article, Carlisle ran up an impressive rushing total with it. ------ November 10, 1912, Sunday, The Sun (N.Y.) ARMY PUT TO ROUT BY INDIAN TEAM Terrific Procession Keeps Up Until Score is 27 to 6. THORPE IRRESISTIBLE Tears Through and Around Demoralized Cadets' Defence. ROUGH AND FIERCE GAME Devore and Powell Banished for Violations - Fight Lasts Into Darkness. West Point, N. Y., Nov. 9. - The fast and tireless Carlisle Indians dropped in here for an afternoon of football to-day and circled and battered the Army eleven for four touchdowns, from which three goals were kicked. The Army made one touchdown and had the honor of scoring first, but that was about all the satisfaction the soldiers derived from the battle. They were beaten by a score of 27 to 6, which decisive drubbing is something they are quite unaccustomed to. There was no help for it, however, for the redmen were far and away their superiors in the art of rushing the leather over the goal line. It was dark when the game was finished and it was just about that time that the whirlwind Thorpe, who had been tearing off great loops around the ends all afternoon, tried to kick his fourth goal. That was the only kick of his that went astray, probably on account of the dim light. Whether in the dusk or in the daylight, however, the Indians marched and tore and forward passed their way to the Army goal line, sometimes going as far as seventy yards in one unbroken series of gains. Distance was nothing to them. The only way to have beaten them would have been to have a field a quarter of a mile long and they'd have gone over that if they'd had the time. The game was unusual in the tremendous extent of ground gained by rushing. The Army did a considerable amount of that too, though neither in offence nor defence were they as strong as the braves. The large amount of end running and line slamming for distances, varying from five to forty yards, together with the forward passes, made the battle very picturesque, the Indians contributing most of the picturesqueness. With a powerful and fast backfield which seldom was at a loss how to gain ground, with a hard charging line which provided a busy afternoon for the Army forwards, often making gaping holes, and with interference which frequently blanketed the Army players and kept them away from the man with the ball, the Indians displayed the best organized, the most effective offence that those who hadn't seen them, but had seen the other big teams, have gazed upon this season. So far as the Army was concerned the Indians showed that the problem of consistently gaining ten yards in four downs is a problem solved. Not that the soldiers didn't do stubborn and effective defensive work. They did do this at times and made several successful stands right under their own goal posts. Their afternoon was devoted largely to testing their defence. They had lots of opportunity to practise it. But they were a completely outplayed team. Even with their star tackle, Capt. Devore, back in the game, they couldn't hold the Indians, and Devore, possibly from lack of practice, caught a large, copper hued tartar in Guyon, who played opposite him. Likewise Guyon was a terror at running with the ball from his position in the line, and his work in that direction illustrated the possibilities of this play, which at most colleges seems to have become obsolete. The shift of the Indians, in which two guards and an end got into the formations on one side of the line, made a good deal of trouble for the Soldiers, and the latter's secondary defence had a great deal to do, doing it pretty well and with unflagging spirit. The Indians ran off their plays quickly and had a group of backs in Thorpe, Arcasa, Powell and Bergie who rammed the line and circled the ends with equal facility and impetuosity. The backs were hard to stop and hard to get hold of. Their work was facilitated by the splendid interference they had. The interference formed quickly and with precision. It looked as if the Army men were doing a good deal of poor tackling, but most of their trouble was in getting to the runner so they could tackle. Two players were disqualified for roughness. Powell of the Indians was sent to the side lines early in the game. He was a potent factor while in the game, but Bergie, who left the centre berth to take the fullback position, was almost as good. Capt. Devore of the Army was disqualified in the second half for pouncing on an Indian who was down. He left the field protesting against the ruling. The half distance to the goal line penalty which came with Powell's disqualification moved the ball from the Army's 40 yard line to Carlisle's 30 yard line and put the Army in position for its touchdown. Still the Army's offence was strong just then, for the touchdown wasn't earned without making up a fifteen yard holding penalty. There was a cold, diagonal wind in Carlisle's favor when the game opened. Thorpe muffed Devore's kickoff, but recovered, and from the first scrimmage Arcasa, who shared honors with Thorpe in advancing the ball, flitted around left end twelve yards. Thorpe immediately added twenty yards on a criss-cross, a play which the Indians used with telling effect. A little later, Thorpe, suiting his flight superbly to his impregnable interference. came leaping and bowling over the chalk marks for thirty yards. He dropped the ball when tackled, however, and Purnell nailed it for the Army on the latter's fifteen yard line. Hobbs sent a beautiful punt into the wind and Markoe, down very fast, nailed Thorpe on Carlisle's 25 yard line. Powell, built like a battleship, slashed through tackle and went thirty yards. He fumbled when tackled, but Busch, who was right behind, interfering for Powell, caught the loose pigskin on the fly and went five more. Powell and Arcasa put on eighteen more yards, but Carlisle was penalized for using hands. Thorpe picked up ten of these lost fifteen yards at one rush, and a forward pass, Thorpe to Powell, earned twelve. On a fourth down the Indians tried a forward pass, which was incompleted. Keyes went six yards through Guyon, Eisenhower cracked the center for one and Keyes split the left wing for six more. Then the Army was held and Hobbs punted. Thorpe came back to Carlisle’s 42 yard line. Arcasa sent a forward pass to Thorpe for fifteen yards. The Army defence braced for a while, but the sharp and varied Carlisle attack took the ball to West Point's 6 yard line. Markoe stopped a crisscross and Carlisle tried a forward pass over the goal line. It was incompleted. Eisenhower made eight yards through openings provided by Devore and the period ended. In the second period Prichard deftly sent a punt out of bounds at Carlisle's 10 yard line. Thorpe got away a low boring punt of fifty-five yards. Keyes chased it, got it on the bound and then came back to the Army's 35 yard line. Two rushes took the ball to the 40 yard line, where Powell was disqualified. From Carlisle's 30 yard line Prichard made an end run of six yards, fumbled and recovered. The Army was penalized fifteen yards, but Eisenhower went through Carlisle's right wing six yards and Hobbs swept around left end for eighteen. Taking the ball twice, Keyes made nine yards. There was a stiff fight on Carlisle's 4 yard line, then Hobbs on a wide sweep to the left crossed the goal line. Trying to convert, Prichard kicked too low and the leather went under the crossbar. Devore's kickoff was abortive, going only twenty yards. Thorpe lost five yards running from a kick formation. Markoe got him. The ball was carried into Army territory, and there was even battling until the Army was penalized for holding. Purnell, the Army centre, made a bit of a fuss over the umpire's ruling, but quieted down and Arcasa made a fair catch on the Army's 46 yard. line. It was a poor punt by Hobbs. Then Mr. Thorpe got into action again. He twisted this way and that, shook off Army tacklers and promenaded down the field thirty yards, The Army put up a hard fight, but the Indians drove in with short gains until a four yard plunge by Bergie through West Point's left wing took the ball over for a touchdown. It was like breaking sticks for Thorpe to kick the goal, making the score, Carlisle. 7 ; Army 6. The Army tried three forward passes in succession before the half ended and none of them worked. Devore was ruled out just after the second half began. That put the ball on the Army's 10 yard line, Benedict made eight yards on a fake kick, but the Army had to punt. The Indians cut loose again and had the ball on West Point's 1 yard line, when they lost it on downs. Thorpe ran a kick back thirty yards, but the ball was called back and Keyes again punted from behind the goal line. Welch caught near midfield and from scrimmage Thorpe flew around right end twenty-five yards, Army men trying vainly to get to him and being sprawled all over the scenery. This run was topped off with a touchdown. Arcasa made it after the ball had been taken to the 4 yard line by short, powerful jabs. Again Thorpe lifted the ball over, making the score 14 to 6. The next Carlisle touchdown wasn't long coming. It represented continuous possession by Carlisle, of the ball for seventy yards. The kickoff was caught by Arcasa on the 30 yard line. The teams lined up and the march began. The West Pointers were smeared in every scrimmage and the ball advanced from five to fifteen yards at a clip. The fighting was desperate on the Army's 20 yard line, and it looked as if the Indians would be checked, but they called on their reserve energy, flung their men against the enemy swiftly and compactly and the Army was crowded back. Arcasa, the human bullet, was called upon to administer the finishing stroke again and with head down he piled through and over. The Carlisle total rose to 21 when Thorpe kicked the goal. In the fourth period the Indians, getting better all the time, started another parade to the Army goal. A penalty and a fumble delayed them, though they got in a forward pass of fifteen yards. Then they were penalized again and Thorpe tried a place kick from the 42 yard line. Keyes caught the ball on the five yard line. After the Army had been repulsed twice Keyes made five yards on a shift. On a punt to the centre it was Carlisle's ball. The old destructive machinery was put in operation again and Carlisle ate up the distance to the Army's 10 yard mark. Then it went to West Point's 1 yard line. The Army men made one of their noted stands at this juncture and held for downs. Ill luck visited them, however. Coffin tried to kick from behind the line and the ball struck a goal post. It went out of bounds at the Army's 10 yard line. Calac made a short gain on a crisscross, but he wasn't the equal of his fellow tackle, Guyon, at that trick. But having another chance for a score so soon after the preceding one, the Indians weren't to be stopped again. Arcasa took the ball three times. He made six yards on a direct pass and straight buck, made none assailing West Point's right flank and went over for a touchdown around right end. In the gloaming Thorpe's kick went wide, but that was a mere trifle. Besides Thorpe, so one of the substitutes explained, didn't have his kicking shoes with him. Just how many kinds of shoes he has wasn't explained, but he had his running shoes with him. The lineup: code:
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Here's Carlisle. Before the game Pop Warner reminded them that it was the fathers and grandfathers of these Army players who had killed their fathers and grandfathers in the Indian Wars. Eisenhower ended up destroying his knee trying to take out Jim Thorpe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Thorpe was such a monster. Greatest athlete of his day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
1912 The 1912 season draws to a close, and seems to have gone successfully. Four downs and end zones have improved the game significantly, now it's just a matter of adapting to them. Running the ball is still the main offensive weapon of the large eastern schools, as they still refuse to accept the forward pass as a legitimate part of the game. ------ December 2, 1912, Monday, The New York Times NO CHANGE NEEDED IN FOOTBALL RULES But Coaches Should Give More Attention to Offensive Game. The Army-Navy game on Saturday, which closed the football season, brought out no new football which wasn’t shown under the old code. While this season’s gridiron campaign has been productive of better games than during the last few season, none of the stronger teams of the East has developed an offensive play or system of attack which seems possible after the rules were revised last season. Nothing aside from old-fashioned football tactics was shown in the Army-Navy game. Both teams used linebucking plays, wearing their backs out in hopeless smashing against strong defense. There was a great lack of variety of play. The championship goes without question to Harvard, and yet Harvard followed old football tactics all season. The Crimson had a carefully drilled football machine, mechanical in action rather than brilliant or spontaneous. Victories over Brown, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Yale give Harvard as clear a claim to the title as a football team in the East has had in several seasons. While there have been more touchdowns during the past season with four rushes to carry the ball 10 yards, the running, open game has not been developed as the football rule makers had anticipated. Coaches realized that they could still develop a defense great enough to offset the additional privileges given to the attack. The result was that in many of the big games the teams had to resort to the kicking game. Two teams developed the offensive game to a high degree, these elevens being Princeton and the Carlisle Indians. Princeton had one of its lightest teams, and from the very first of the season used open play with speedy execution. They made use of all the changes in the rules which favored the rushing game, and displayed a wide variety of play. The team, however, which developed the running game to a high degree of perfection this season was the Carlisle Indians under Coach Glenn Warner. Here was the most successive scoring team of the year, with a fast, open attack, a highly developed interference, skill with the forward pass, all built around Jim Thorpe, one of the most sensational players the game has developed. The Indians’ great offensive game was developed to its high state of efficiency, however, at the expense of their defensive game, and it was this uncertain feature of their play which prevented this year’s Indian team from being a great eleven. It has been an unusually successful season for the smaller college elevens, which are coached to come to their best form early in the season. These teams have profited by the new rules, the additional advantage allotted the offensive play giving them a better opportunity against the big elevens. Many of the coaches have been backward about making use of all the advantages given to the attack during the past season. Most of them have followed what they believed to be a safe and sane policy. But it is believed that another season under the new code will lead to a greater development of the running game. A feather in the cap of the rule makers is the small number of serious injuries this season. While the four rushes allowed to gain ten yards has brought back into use old-fashioned line bucking tactics, the elimination of pulling, tugging, and pushing the runner has practically done away with the danger of serious gridiron accidents. After all, this was the thing that the rule makers aimed at, and their labors have been rewarded with success.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:Isn't that the "goal lines go out to infinity" thing that we don't use anymore? Now it just has to go over the pylon? Here is how it has been explained to me as an NFHS official. The goal line goes out to infinity thing is still alive and well, but it depends on if the runner is going airborne out of bounds (i.e. diving), or simply holding the ball out of bounds with his feet in bounds. If a runner is airborne, then we put the ball in bounds at the spot where the ball crossed the sideline. Therefore, if a runner dives forward, but the ball goes out of bounds before the goal line, it is not a touchdown. If a runner has at least one foot in bounds, but holds the ball across the goal line - including the goal line extended - then he has scored a touchdown. This is supported by 2-26-3 (attached image).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I will wrap up this sojourn into the dawn of modern football with the year 1913. 1913 We'll start 1913 with a couple articles written by a Harvard freshman of his experiences during his first college football season. I found them quite enjoyable. ------ December 1, 1912, Sunday, The New York Times Harvard Student Tells How He Enjoyed His First Football Games as a Freshman at Cambridge. The Harvard football team begins practice a week before college opens and continues it to the end of the season. The small colleges of the region are allowed to help. The first few games are attended by such of the student body of the university as have the time, and they sit around and criticize Schopenhauer’s metaphysics and recent plays. But if the games are not exciting they get men out in the air. They are good for us. But there is another side to it. I wonder how it feels to be on the other teams in these games, to know you can’t win, and that if you score it will be an accident? But they never hesitate to come. They throw themselves without hesitating upon the line with our 2,000 students, our elaborate organization, our splendid equipment, our wealthy Athletic Association, our tradition of victory, our Houghton, and our backfield behind it. Of course, they are flung aside; but I rather wonder if there isn’t a large amount of respect due the spirit of a small college which year after year sends up its teams to almost certain defeat? It’s all very well to talk about the fight and not the score being the important thing, but it hurts to fail. If you were the biggest boy in your town, would it help your feelings much to know that the boy who licked you was from the city? But every once in a while we forget our bored attitude after the first few minutes of play. I seem to remember reading of a Carlisle game last year, and for a while at the beginning of the Brown game this year I wondered whether those large and pugnacious-looking demons were going to allow the ‘Varsity to remain on the field. And even after the said ‘Varsity woke up and we all settled back to watch the mounted policemen chase the little boys off the field, we were rudely stirred up by Crowther’s touchdown. It spoiled our record, but we were glad he got it. He deserved it. If Brown had had eleven of him - ! That was the last game played at 3 o’clock, and it was strung out by extra time. It got very dark near the end, for the high walls of the stadium shut out the sunset. I went to the game with Von Norton, who rooms next to me. He proceeded to object because there was neither an Elijah nor an arc-light present; and I promised to make a bright remark, and struck a match for them to see by. At once other matches flickered out across the stadium, and soon they were glimmering all around. They looked weird in the dusk, and a pigeon which flew into the stadium with the evident intention of looking at the scoreboard thought better of it and sailed out again. And a little later the game was called on account of darkness. But I did my best. The game before, with Amherst, was interesting. It was played in a drizzling rain. And every tackle, tackler, and tacklee would slide, and slide, and slide and continue to slide. I was tempted to quote the Iliad, though I think it’s rather bad taste to flaunt one’s classical learning - Lives of football men remind us We may write our names in blood. And, departing, leave behind us Half our faces in the mud. If this is not Homer, it’s from a contemporary poet. Amherst sang between the halves. There was a gallant little cheering section to help the team, and it stood up and explained, in the face of the score nearing 30 to 0, that this would be Amherst’s day. Of course, we cheered. I understand that this singing is an annual affair, and an upper class friend of mine says he likes the Amherst the best of the small games because of it. There is good spirit at that school. I don’t think there is much to say about the Williams and Holy Cross and Maine games which the sporting editors have not already said. They - the games - interested me because they were the first college games I had ever seen, but they were like any other. I won’t waste space on them while there is the place and crowd to talk about. The stadium is filled only by the great games, for it seats about 27,000 people. The early games seldom call out more than 10,000. With these sprinkled about, one begins to realize the greatness of the structure, with its splendid rows of seats climbing tier on tier to the colonnade at the top, and its massive towers at the ends. Out through them one sees the Locker Building and baseball cage, with the tennis courts, the boathouse, and the river beyond. After the games crowds pour out toward the gates and down by the dusty - or muddy - road to the bridge, while the natives howl, “Gecher winnin’ cullers” and wave flags in their faces, or sell them daily papers containing full accounts of the game they have just seen. And thus till they come to the bridge. Let us pause a while by the bridge and swear softly. We shall have to pause, for the bridge is so narrow we can’t get across with all these people; but the swearing is a matter of custom and is optional. The rumor is spread that a returned alumnus heard the artistic cursing of the undergraduates crossing the bridge after a game, and remarked that boys who could swear like that didn’t need any more practice and that the next $10,000 he made he’d give the university a real bridge. Whether Anderson, ’88, is the man I don’t know; but he’s going to give us a bridge. It may help some future Harvard man to heaven; as for us, by the end of the season - ! But the passing crowd is the main interest now, for it contains all sorts. Only Harvard people can get to the big games, and Yale and Princeton people, of course, at the respective games; but to these any one with the price may come. And they are there - from the self-conscious Boys’ Club leader, with his sharp-eyed charges yelling around him, to the immaculate fusser with a scarlet-coated girl at his side; from the darting boys selling “I Told You So” signs, so the prim school teacher who thinks football should be forbidden, and the gentle little wife of some professor, glancing timidly at five scuffling freshmen. Yea, verily, the proper study of mankind is man, and there’s no better place to study than in a football crowd. And I had a season ticket. I’m going to take the whole course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Oh man, wonder how this man's life went as he watched Harvard fall into football obscurity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
1913 Our freshman's article about the Princeton and Yale games. The timelessness of the college football experience is remarkable. ------ December 8, 1912, Sunday, The New York Times Harvard Lad Tells of the Crimson Football Victories Over the Princeton Tiger and the Yale Bulldog. Yes, I know you’ve read all about it. But I don’t pretend to be a sporting editor, and I’m not going to try to do over poorly what has been well done once, as the old lady remarked as she swiftly swallowed the hash. Right here I should like to put in a few kindly remarks about profs. I have classes up to 1 o’clock on Saturday; and the perfectly human man who instructs me in the rudiments of philosophy from 12 to 1 had the kindness, the benevolence, the goodness, the nobility, the general blessedness to let us out at 12:30. Of course, it is not inconceivable that he wanted to go to the game himself; but why deprive him of credit on that account? Let’s give him all the credit we can. He’s only a philosopher, anyway. The big games begin at 2 o’clock, because they are played at a time of year when it gets dark early. Incidentally, it’s cold at said time of year, and it helps a bit if one is able to stow some food inside one before. By making this possible the phil. prof. has earned a more lively interest, on my part, at least, in the eccentricities of Empedocles. The way to a man’s head, as well as to his heart, may lie through his stomach. So I went and fed and left my books at home, and then wandered toward the field. There were not the strange beings at this game that come to the little games, for few but Harvard and Princeton people were there. But the crowd looked like a showfur’s convention. There were the remains of animals from Greenland’s icy mountains to Boston’s back alleys in that crowd. You can see everything from the leopard, of which you cannot change the spots, to the cat of which you can spot the change, and there are polar bears on all sides. Truly, I went “big game” hunting that afternoon with all the sensations thrown in. There was the usual jam at the bridge, the usual line of mercantile gentlemen requesting that you “Gecher winning cullers,” the usual small boys hopelessly pleading “Gottnextra ticket, mister?” the usual impressive majesty of the law, on the irritable horse, all but killing the crowd he was sent to protect. There were the usual girls and the usual worried ushers. But the Stadium was not as scantily filled as usual. I have raved long and earnestly about the bigness of it; but I never realized it until I saw it full. The Lampoon of last year’s Yale game gives the picture better than I can: There’s a crispness in the Autumn air, There’s a rainbow of hues in the stands, There’s an endless wait while the stones vibrate With the clangorous blare of the bands. There’s a round of cheers from the crowded tiers Heaped black ‘gainst the Crimson sun, There’s a hush-tomb-still - then a whistle shrill, And the Game of the Year is begun. The tingle comes into your blood as you enter the Stadium. I sat in the cheering section. Down below was the Harvard band, while across the field a slender Princetonian was waving a monster megaphone as he led a song. It roared across, only to be drowned by the cheer with which we rose to our feet when the Harvard squad, their scarlet blankets flapping behind them, burst out of the narrow entry and bounded across the field like a troop of demons. The Princeton squad followed, and their cheer answered ours. Then we cheered them and they cheered us, and we settled down to watch the punts. And the ball was carefully balanced on its little hill, and the teams took their places, and the whistle tooted, and we all leaned forward and gripped the stone, and watched! If you have ever been to a game you will understand the intensity of concentration that one gives to it; if you have not, I can’t make it clear. I suggest that you try it. For if you can’t understand the intensity you will think it foolish that we danced up and down like wild things when Brickley kicked a goal, or when Hardwick made his touchdown. You will see no reason for frantic joy in the mere fact that a man can make a ball go over a bar forty-seven yards away by striking it with his foot. It will rouse your pity to learn that Brickley was taken exhausted from the field after that driving charge, into which he forced the last ounce of his strength; but you won’t sympathize with the cold fear that fell upon the cheering section until it learned that he was not hurt. And when you are told of this you will say to yourself, “How cold-bloodedly selfish! They don’t care how he’s hurt, except as it affects their football chances.” But this is because you don’t know how it feels to work for a Cause - even a football championship - and to think not of men but of their abilities. Yes, personally speaking, I did sit in the stands, and the only work I did for that Cause for which I am so enthusiastic was with my lungs; but I don’t think there was a man in the cheering section who would have hesitated a second to take Brickley’s place did he possess the ability. And at least admit that I did the best I could with my hundred and twenty-six pounds - I made myself so hoarse I couldn’t recite for five days after, and created the general impression among my instructors that I was insane or had been struck dumb. But do you suppose I cared? Or, when I explained, do you suppose they did, either? And how we surged over the field as we heard the closing whistle! They talk about Harvard “indifference”; but there was no frigid formality about the way we joined hands and linked arms with perfect strangers and romped about that field in the great snake dance. Round we went, rioting from side to side, flinging our hats over the goal posts as we passed under. I was on one end of my line, and was flicked off on the turn, straight into the stomach of a portly and dignified man who said “woof,” and went over backwards saying several other things. I don’t know who he was, and thank the Lord he doesn’t know who I am. I was up first, and promptly attached myself to another line, with which I whirled away. I hate to think of that man’s opinion of me. On the way out, we stopped before the Locker Building and sang “Fair Harvard” to the tired team in the rooms above. I am glad I heard that. There was such an awful crush on the bridge that I stopped to wait for the crowd to get over. I hoped some of the men I knew would come by, for one must sit where one can at the big game, and I had had to go alone. No one came, however, and I watched the Stadium and the hills in purple silhouette against the flaming sunset, until the crowd had passed. It seemed to quiet me from the afternoon’s excitement, and the feeling did not pass off. I went up through the crowded square and into the yard. The lights were twinkling out from the dormitory windows into the dusk, and Princeton people were asking if I could direct them to Hollis Hall. Here and there an automobile would swing its flaring lamps about, sweeping an arc of light and frightening timid folk. From some of the rooms came laughter and the buzz of conversation, and I knew that a tea was in progress. The college was celebrating, and it was doing so without me. I must have been lonely, for I went up to my room and studied till dinner. I learned that Aristotle realized the conceptual necessity of the empirically actual. It cheered me considerably. There were several reasons why I did not go to New Haven. There were, for instance, the tailor, and the wash lady, to have more shoes, and, well - there were several. I ran a bit close to the wind, and wrote home for assistance with a hurry-up on the end. But dad has a prejudice against betting, and I guess he didn’t want to expose me to temptation in that line. In short, my college spirit received a check because I didn’t. And so I went to the Union. The Union is a sort of general club, to which any member of the university - profs., too - may belong. The building is over by one corner of the yard, and is of brick. In the basement are billiard rooms and the office of The Crime - The Crimson, that is, the Harvard daily. The first floor consists of the great living room, a periodical room, a dining room, and a game room. On the second are the trophy room, another dining room, and a large library. The third floor is the sanctum of The Monthly and Advocate. Men come to the Union to smoke, read, or play games; lectures and readings are held in the living room; classes hold smokers, dinners, and dances; the orchestra gives concerts; mass meetings are held, and the results of elections, games, and meets are posted there. I watched this game on the scoreboard there. The living room is long and high and narrow. Twenty feet up its walls are wainscoted with carved oak. Portraits of the great officers and alumni are on those walls. There is one there of Major Higginson, who gave the Union, which makes me nervous. It is a wonderful portrait, but it looks at me as if it disapproved of my hair-cut. There is a full-length picture of Mr. Roosevelt, and one of President Eliot. There are many smaller portraits. Two enormous chandeliers made of elk horns hang from the high ceiling on chains. Usually long oak tables stretch across the room, for reading and writing and study; but this afternoon they were gone and instead there were rows of chairs and a platform with the scoreboard at one end of the room. There was quite a crowd. A blue cloud of tobacco smoke floated over it, and there was a buzz of conversation. The game had started, but nothing had happened yet. The ball moved here and there across the little gridiron, as the bulletins came in telling of the movements of that other ball, a hundred and fifty miles away. When it was Harvard’s, the scoreboard ball showed crimson; when it went to Yale, the flat card which represented it was turned over to show blue against the black field. Every minute a clicking would be heard, and a young man would come to the front of the platform and read such a message as that “Brickley misses a try for a goal from the twenty-seven-yard line.” The ball would move along its groove, and the crowd would settle back to wait for the next play. I sat at a window about half way down the hall. I was above the general level, on the sill, and I could watch how people took the news as it came in. A tall, serious-looking youth near me was reading in a low voice from Schopenhauer. I was interesting to hear him read of the hopelessness of things and the cussedness of life in general, and then drop his book, arise, and scream for sheer joy when Storer made the first touchdown. Also, it was picturesque to hear him coldly rebuke an excitable man who danced up and down on his toes, and then sit down to read that the denial of the will to live was the only road to freedom. Great matter, philosophy! Other men were playing checkers patiently. Every time Harvard made a gain they forgot the board and leaped wildly to their feet to embrace each other; and when things quieted down they would go down on bended hands and knees to find the checkers. A man at my left would gently whisper to himself every little while, “This is like playing Maine. Oh, this is like playing Maine.” Some one in the rear of the hall, in his excitement, called upon Harvard to “Show the old spirit,” and some one near me remarked that it wouldn’t be wise in that crowd, and that Cambridge was a dry town, anyway. Every little while some one would start whistling one of the football songs, and it would sweep over the hall, carrying the more sensitive to their feet and brightening the calmest eye. Between times we sang, and chanted “One! Two! Three! Four! Five! Six! Seven! Eight! Nine! Ten!” ending with the long crashing cheer. It is calculated for outdoor use, so you may imagine its effect in the hall. It was - well, it was almost as good as being at the game! The bulletins came in fast as the second half opened. Now Brickley had smothered a Yale pass. We cheered. Then Harvard was penalized for holding. We sat silent, as that other crowd down at the field had sat a moment before. We swore a little, quietly and to ourselves, when the third try for goal failed. We leaped to our feet at the next touchdown, and flung our magazines and books into the air with the same wild delight from which those other Harvard crowds were just recovering. We pounded each other’s shoulders and chortled “Seventeen to nothing,” and then went crazy again when the last goal was kicked. And we forgot our Schopenhauers and our checkers and our whistling and hold tight to the arms of our chairs while we heard how the Yale team desperately gathered itself, aided by fresh men, and drove the weary Crimson back for five straight first downs. We sighed with relief when the pasteboard ball was turned once more to show the Crimson side. And when the bulletin told how time was called with our goal still uncrossed, we yelled ourselves hoarse. The Anglo-Saxon temperament is unemotional. The crowd poured out of the building and scattered, while the boys with “wuxtries” made fortunes and told each other about it. No one could fail to get a paper to read about things, and no one could be small in the matter of change after a 20-to-0 victory. It must be nice to be a Cambridge child. If I get in the same financial fix next time we play at New Haven, I’ll know to whom to go for help. Dad, please note. I slid around to the room, collected my armband - I had been a bit bashful about displaying too much emotion before - hiked for the square, grabbed a dog (technical terms are used in this sentence; there is nothing cruel or unusual implied) and beat it. It was early, and, of course, the special trains from the game had not yet returned to Boston. I wandered around in the crowds at twilight and saw the city glowing red from the light of the dying sun. Then I practiced finding the South Station, succeeded at last met Von Norton - the man who rooms next door to me, and with whom I planned to spend the evening - and we went out together to watch the city glowing red from a number of other causes. O-o-o-h, Lulu! When those specials got in it glowed all right! And the man in the Union during the game had read: “It is really incredible how meaningless and void of significance when looked at from without, how dull and unenlightened by intellect when felt from within, is the course of the life of the great majority of men. It is a weary longing and complaining, a dream-like staggering through the four ages of life to death, accompanied by a series of trivial thoughts.” That was Schopenhauer’s “The World as Will and Idea.” There seems to be a disagreement here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
1913 With the score Football 2, Philosophy 0, we'll move on to more about the game itself. Mike Thompson, a leading referee of his day, writes a column on the new rules and the roles of officials. Two holes in the rules yet remain - passes out of bounds are still a turnover (which many teams found very convenient on 4th down), and intentional grounding is legal. ------ December 26, 1912, Thursday, The New York Times NEW FOOTBALL RULES MADE GAME BETTER Referee “Mike” Thompson Found Much Satisfaction in the Sport Last Fall. FORWARD PASS MIGHT GO Almost a Useless Play Employed by a Team Outclassed - Game More Open - More Scoring. BY M. J. THOMPSON, Football Referee. Despite the severe criticism the game of American football has undergone for the past few years, there is no doubt that the past season was a success from nearly every viewpoint. True, there were a few discrepancies, but so few, as compared with previous years, that they were hardly noticed by the critics. In the first place, we did not, as in the past two seasons, have many games marred by tie scores, the Yale-Princeton game being the only exception in the more important contests. This point alone proved the wisdom of the Rules Committee in advancing the idea for more scoring. The game was more open; the elimination of the 20-yard zone, which had always been a bone of contention from its introduction, simplified matters to a great extent. The 10-yard zone behind the goal posts, which many football experts looked upon with fear, turned out to be a big asset for teams using the forward pass with proficiency. This innovation made possible some very spectacular plays during the season. The rules were more definitely expressed than heretofore, so that it was a rather easy matter for the officials who had made a careful study of the game and code to get along with their work very nicely. As much as the rule makers tried to arrange the rules to meet all conditions, there were points that came up that will need further attention. This was to be expected, as new innovations are more or less on trial and only practical workings will bring out the defects. We find many who are opposed to the game as it is played to-day, and I have found this to be the sentiment especially among the older football men. There seems to be a feeling on the part of some that the forward pass is a foolish and haphazard play, and that it is doing more harm to the game than good. No matter how the rules are fixed, I do not suppose that there is going to be a universal sentiment in favor of them. During the past season one man remarked to me that the game was retrograding. My only answer was: “What is the interest in the game this year compared with former years?” Up to date I have heard little about the injuries resulting from the game. I personally have seen very few, and those that have come under my observation have been very slight. Another noticeable point, and a very important one, was that there was less tendency this year than ever before on the part of the players to infringe on the rules. Not only was this evident in games that I took part in myself, but other officials have informed me on the same point. This, to my mind, means that the boys are thumbing the rule book; and the coaches are to be praised for this, in past years it was woeful to see how little the players knew about even the fundamental points; and officials had to stand for many arguments when it was entirely unnecessary. The players this past season had the right idea, and no one was more grateful than the officials. Many players have the wrong idea of officials. Some of these you men think a referee or umpire, when he appears on the field, wears horns, or is there for the purpose of doing damage. Officials handling games always feel if they can come out of a contest without giving a penalty that they have done a good day’s work, although a great many football men think that the official is always looking for a chance to penalize. I do not think that there is anything so distasteful to an official as to be compelled to put a man out of the game. As the majority of officials are all college men themselves they realize the damaging effect such a decision will have upon the future career of the young man suspended. The official, when he accepts an invitation to officiate, realizes he has a duty to perform, and a very important one; and he is just as anxious and ambitious to perform that duty well, and be informed of it, as any one of the twenty-two players. No official cares to come out of contest and be called all sorts of names for incompetent work; and from personal experience I know that the men handling football games work hard to get results, and are conscientious; and I feel sure that the men that have the ability of acting in the capacity of officials desire very much to to to the dressing room patting themselves on the back when they have not been called upon to inflict a penalty. In fact, they consider that they have worked a grand game. I do not think that the next session of the Rules Committee there will be as long a discussion as in previous years. The make-up of the code looks as near right as they can make it, unless some of our coaches are burning the midnight oil and see some chance to get around it. A few points that came up this year, and which they will no doubt act upon, have reference to the forward pass. The first point is this: On a forward pass the man to throw the ball, say, eight or ten yards from his center, as soon as he receives the ball starts around either end, at the same time looking for an eligible player of his team to whom he might pass it. In his attempts to pick out some member of his team who is not covered he is radically forced back toward his own goal; and, realizing that it is impossible to make the pass with members of the opposing team closing in on him, he simply throws the ball a few yards in front of him, hitting the ground and making an incomplete pass when he is fully 15 to 20 yards back of the point where the center put the ball in play. As a result the ball is brought back to the point of the previous down and the penalty for the down inflicted. This was worked several times during the season and always by the weaker team, and in some contests this exception to the rule saved many yards. This seems like the rule of the old days. When you did not gain 5 or lose 20 yards the ball was still in the possession of the offensive side. This play was in the code for many years, and it was only changed when the exception was taken to it. This was resorted to by a team that was up against it, and it was owing to the scheme of a strategist to save his team from an overwhelming defeat that the play was tried. So with the present play, I feel sure that this will be legislated against as it is only worked by a team that is outclassed. Another point came up: A team is within hailing distance of the goal, is held for downs and forced to kick, and has a strong punter who is apt to boot it over the goal line, giving the defensive the selection of a kick-out or scrimmage. A player shoots a forward pass out of bounds, say on the five or ten yard line, making the team receiving it, as out of bounds, line up for scrimmage. This play I have seen worked many times. The team receiving the ball and defending the goal at a short distance is forced to kick. The kick is blocked and the defensive side makes a touchdown. These are two of the most important rules that I think need legislation; but when I saw the plays used I could not help but admire the coaches for their strategy in taking advantage of the rules. Another point that the committee cleared up in the past season was in regard to the number of officials. I have always contended that a referee and an umpire, with the assistance of a linesman, could handle any game. As it was last year, it took eight men to look after the duties on account of the neutral zone. There were too many to give decisions, or even to suggest them, as there was always a conflict and the referee was always in trouble trying to straighten out the difficulty, and his solution was often to a great extent unsatisfactory. True, the umpire has a number of duties imposed upon him since the rules have done away with the field judge; but he has no neutral zone to look after; and, with a capable head linesman, he can work very nicely with the referee; and the three of them should be able to pull off a game to the satisfaction of all. The rules, in my opinion, in their present form, with the few suggestions offered, are as they should be. Injuries are to a great extent eliminated; the game is more open; there is more scoring; the general public likes it, and the rules are more clearly understood. The players seem to like the present game; the coaches with few exceptions agree, and the gridiron followers are satisfied. So why not let well enough alone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
1913 The annual NCAA meeting shifts its focus to the evils of baseball, with the football problem appearing to be finally licked. It would be another 25 years before the NCAA would be anything more than an academic debating society. Bill Dudley brings up the issue of recruiting, accusing teams of effectively hiring their players - but again, it would be many decades before anything was done about it. ------ December 28, 1912, Saturday, The New York Times COLLEGE COACH TOO MUCH IN SPOTLIGHT W. F. Garcelon of Harvard Thinks Baseball Teams Should Play Their Own Game. A. A. U. NEEDS COLLEGE MEN “Hiring Athletes” Scored by Prof. Dudley at National Collegiate Association Meeting. All the knotty problems of college athletics were thrashed out at the annual convention of the National Collegiate Association at the Hotel Astor yesterday, delegates from more than 100 colleges, schools and universities in different parts of the country taking part in the hundred and one discussions which made up the day’s oratorical proceedings. Summer baseball, amateurism, training, coaching and other phases of intercollegiate sport came in for a grilling. College baseball got the hardest rap of the day from William F. Garcelon, Graduate Director of Athletics at Harvard, who said in his report on baseball among the colleges of New England that the coach had become altogether too prominent in college games. Mr. Garcelon said that college games were no longer contests between teams of college students but contests between coaches. He said that the players when they went to the bat had to keep one eye on the ball and the other on the coach on the bench. He deplored the fact that the coach had become such a figure in college games and suggested that during baseball games the coaches, instead of running the game from the bench, should go away somewhere and let the boys play their own game. Mr. Garcelon also took occasion to mention that sometime there would be closer relations between the colleges and the Amateur Athletic Union. He suggested that the A. A. U. would be a better organization if there were more college men identified with its affairs. Mr. Garcelon directed a stinging rebuke to the A. A. U. when he stated that many of the men who serve on committee in various branches of the organization do so simply for what they can get out of it. Prof. William L. Dudley of Vanderbilt University directed much criticism against the methods employed by colleges in attracting students to their halls of learning. Prof. Dudley hit out straight from the shoulder in his address and remarked that the employment bureaus conducted by some of the colleges were nothing but agencies for hiring athletes. He said that there were three groups of athletic liars - those who tell a lie to establish their amateur standing but won’t write it or swear it; those who tell and write a lie but won’t swear to it before a notary, and those who will go to the limit. “I have known young men to be guilty of dishonorable dealing in after life because their sense of honor was warped by the dishonest methods practiced in college athletics,” said Prof. Dudley. “Preaching does little good. Youth needs demonstration and practical application. The laboratory method must be used on him. The coach has more influence in college for good or ill than any other instructor and, therefore, his selection is of the greatest importance. The selection should be made by the Faculty, through a committee, after the character of the candidate has been thoroughly investigated. More weight should be given to character than to anything else. He must be a clean man in every way. He must be a firm believer in fair play, honest methods and amateur sport. There can be no clean sport with an unclean coach. As is the coach, so are the coached. We may go further and say - As is the coach, so will be the student body.” After seven years with Major Palmer E. Pierce of West Point at its head, the organization had a change of administration yesterday, when Dean La Baron Russell Briggs of Harvard was elected President. Dean Briggs has much to do with Faculty control of athletics at Cambridge, and stands for a high type of true sportsmanship and true manhood. The convention empowered the new President to appoint a committee of three to draft a letter of appreciation to Major Pierce, who is now stationed in China, thanking him for his service to the organization. Secretary Frank W. Nicolson of Wesleyan also paid a high tribute to Major Pierce in his annual report. Prof. Nicolson said: “Major Pierce is a man of the highest ideals of sportsmanship, clear in his views, and firm in carrying them out, withal a man of the nicest courtesy and tact, the best type of American gentleman. Major Pierce has been an ideal President. The success of the organization has been almost altogether due to his personality. Though duty has called him to distant lands, rendering his resignation from office necessary, his heart is still with the association, and he has enjoined upon me to express to you his regret at being absent from this meeting and his sincere best wishes for the future of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.” Prof. T. L. Moran of Purdue was elected Vice President and Frank W. Nicolson of Wesleyan was re-elected Secretary-Treasurer. The Executive Committee was elected as follows: First District - Prof. C. E. Bolser, Dartmouth; Second District - Prof. W. L. Wilson, Lehigh; Third District - Dr. R. B. Abercrombie, Johns Hopkins; Fourth District - Prof. W. H. Hullin, University of the South; Fifth District - Prof. W. G. Manley, Mississippi; Seventh District - Prof. Hugo Bedzek, Arkansas; Eighth District - Frank Cattleman, Colorado. A movement was started by some of the Western delegates to have next year’s convention held in Chicago. This was put to a vote, and the measure was defeated, a majority of the members voting to hold the meeting in New York, as in past years. The meeting next year will be held on Dec. 30. Many were in favor of Dec. 31, but W. F. Garcelon of Harvard pointed out that the last day of the old year would be an unsuitable time to try to hold the meeting in New York, because there would be too many counter attractions for the visiting delegates on New Year’s Eve. One of the most interesting addresses of the convention was delivered by Dr. George L. Meylan of Columbia. His subject was athletic training, and he traced the custom of training from the time of the ancient Olympic games to the present day. He said in part: “The old English custom of drinking ale while in training has been abandoned by many American trainers. The few trainers who allow ale at the training table usually limit its use to once or twice a week after a game or a time row during the latter part of the training season. There is no evidence that athletes who drink ale achieve better results than those who abstain, and there are good reasons for not including any alcoholic beverage in the training diet of college athletes. Rational athletic training constitutes an invaluable part of a college education. It is unfortunate that in most colleges the opportunity for such training is offered to a small proportion of the students enrolled. This association can render a large service to American education by urging the further extension of rational athletics until provision is made for the proper training of all the students in American colleges.” The shortest and most satisfying report of the convention consisted of but a few words and was made by G. W. Ehler of Wisconsin, who is Chairman of the committee appointed to report on the “Football Fatalities Among College Men.” Prof. Ehler reported that there were no fatalities among college men during the past year and the announcement was received with much applause. Dean Briggs took the opportunity of deploring the tendency of college baseball players to imitate the policies of the professional baseball players in the big leagues. “There is much in professional baseball as played by the kings of the game,” said Dean Briggs, “that we do not want to see our students imitate. For instance, we shouldn’t like to see our students imitate Mr. Jennings on the coaching line, although much that he does is humorous and accepted by the American public.” Dr. C. Ward Crampton of the Public Schools’ Athletic League of New York City spoke to the convention on the doings of that organization. Dr. Crampton explained that the City of New York was fostering a system of athletics which was to be found in no other institution - athletics for the many instead of for the few. He explained that the excellent results among the boys and girls of the public schools spoke well for the system. Since its establishment in the schools here, Dr. Crampton explained that it had been taken up by more than twenty of the largest cities of the country. He stated that New York was setting an example for the whole country in the physical training of youth. Dr. Crampton invited all of the delegates to go to Madison Square Garden this afternoon and see the annual indoor championships of the elementary schools. He stated that the manner in which this meet would be run off, with its hundreds of contestants, would be a revelation to the delegates who had never witnessed an affair of this kind. The football report of Dr. Harry L. Williams, the former Yale player and now coach at Minnesota, showed that the organization which has for years been prominent in football reforms is at last well satisfied with the present games under the changes that were made in the rules last season. Dr. Williams advocates the game just as it is with no change whatever. His report in part was: “I have no hesitation in expressing the conviction that the rules of 1912 made possible the best game of football ever played by American colleges. The proper adjustment of the balance between offense and defense, with a maintenance of just the right equilibrium between these forces, has always been a serious problem. The opportunity for the display of skillful generalship and football strategy was decidedly limited under the former rules. “Every year now since the formation of this association, which you will recollect had its inception in a general dissatisfaction over the rules of football, the playing code has been subjected to a constant change by the committee in an endeavor to bring about the best game possible. It may be admitted that an annual change in the game is most unfortunate, both from the standpoint of the players and the public. “But now at last we seem to have a game that is most satisfactory, popular alike among players, spectators, and coaches, where the balance between attack and offense is nicely adjusted, where a team that is properly instructed and properly directed upon the field of play ought always to be able to score unless outclassed, and where the team of superior ability and skill almost invariably wins. As ever, some discontents are still advocating more changes. It would certainly seem wise to allow the game which has proved itself during the last season so eminently satisfactory to remain as it is for a few years.” The following athletic committees were appointed: Football Rules Committee - Dr. H. L. Williams, Minnesota; E. K. Hall, Dartmouth; Dr. J. A. Babbitt, Haverford; Lieut. H. M. Nelly, West Point; Prof. C. W. Savage, Oberlin; Prof. S. C. Williams, Iowa State. Track Committee - Prof. F. W. Marvel, Brown; Dr. W. A. Lambeth, Virginia; Director Frank A. Castelman, Colorado. Basket Ball Committee - Dr. James Naismith, Kansas; Dr. J. E. Raycroft, Princeton; Ralph Morgan, Pennsylvania; Harry Fisher, Columbia; Oswald Tower, Williams; Dr. L. J. Cook, Minnesota; L. W. St. John, Ohio State. The evening session was devoted to informal discussion of various athletic problems that confront the colleges. Glenn Warner, athletic coach at Carlisle, declared that baseball in colleges should be abolished. “As long as colleges continue to develop baseball as one of the principal sports,” said Dr. Warner, “colleges will continue to turn out baseball players who will be in great demand and become professionals. Our experience at Carlisle has convinced us that instead of baseball making men of the Indians, it was more apt to make bums of them. I speak not of baseball in the colleges, but the professional game the student gets into after leaving college. So we abolished baseball at Carlisle, and while it was a bitter pill for the boys, there was no open rebellion, and in a short while things adjusted themselves.” “We substituted for baseball the game of la crosse, and find it is now enjoyed more than baseball was. I really believe that the only solution of the baseball evil in our colleges is to cut it out entirely and substitute a game that is not so professional.” This indictment of baseball instantly caused much discussion among those present, and at its height Prof. Ernst Bouvier of Rutgers college arose and said: “I move that this association appoint a committee of three at the executive meeting to take the baseball matter up and see if some of the bad things about it cannot be cured.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
I have nothing constructive to add, but this is one of my favorite threads on the forum. Thank you for posting all these articles!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
SterlingSylver posted:I have nothing constructive to add, but this is one of my favorite threads on the forum. Thank you for posting all these articles! Thank you for the positive feedback! This thread is mainly just me sperging about stuff I think is cool, so I'm glad others have enjoyed coming along for the ride. 1913 The annual rules meeting is pretty low key this year. With player deaths reduced to zero for the first time, their primary job is over and now secondary issues will start occupying them. Hence, they are beginning to wrestle with the limits of their own authority. The rules of the game are one thing, but whether or not they can require teams to wear or use certain equipment will be a point of discussion for a while. ------ February 15, 1913, Saturday, The New York Times FEW FOOTBALL CHANGES. Rules Committee Decides Present Code Is Nearly Good Enough. Football, as played in 1912, needs no radical changes, as the game came closer to the ideal than in any previous season. Such was the feeling of the Football Rules Committee, to which is assigned the annual task of making necessary changes, when the members gathered last night at the Hotel Martinique for its annual meeting. A few minor changes were made during a three-hour session, but the majority of the questions considered were allowed to remain as during the past season. The committee will meet again this morning for a short session, but it was announced last night that only minor points are to be considered. Edward K. Hall of Dartmouth was reelected Chairman of the committee, and Walter Camp of Yale was again named as Secretary. The other members of the committee who attended the meeting were: Crawford Blagden, Harvard; W. L. Dudley, Vanderbilt, Parke H. Davis, Princeton; S. C. Williams, University of Iowa; Harry L. Williams, University of Minnesota; Capt. Joseph W. Beacham, Cornell; Paul Dashiel, Annapolis; J. M. Sheldon, University of Chicago; Dr. C. W. Savage, Oberlin; William Morice, University of Pennsylvania. Lieut. H. M. Nelly of West Point and Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford were the only members of the committee who did not attend the meeting. The question of numbering players so that spectators might know who is who on the football field called for the longest discussion of the session, but no definite rule was passed. The committee decided that in many ways such a rule would work a hardship, and closed the discussion by leaving the matter entirely to the different teams. To make a rule would necessitate the making of a penalty for non-observance. The propositions to lengthen the quarters from fifteen to twenty minutes, to move the goal posts back from the goal line so they would not interfere in any way with the team carrying the ball, and to eliminate the punt-out after a touchdown close to the side line were also discussed. In each case the committee decided that any change from the present rules would be inadvisable. It was also proposed to provide a rule for a fake forward pass when a player throws the ball to the ground to avoid being tackled, and have the ball returned to its starting place, and this also failed. The same fate met the proposition to make a five-yard penalty on an incompleted forward pass. A committee consisting of Messrs. Sheldon and Morice was appointed to draw up a new rule in regard to illegal shifting of players, the present one being considered ambiguous and faulty. The principal change made in the rules removes the five-yard restriction on a kick, making it permissible to get away a speedy kick without going back five yards behind the line. It was voted to change the penalty of a player not reporting to the referee on entering the game from fifteen yards to five yards. The penalty for illegal return to the game was changed to disqualification and the loss of half the distance to the goal line. The obsolete rule about a center passing the ball, which read, “with a movement of the hands or of the foot,” was changed, the section relating to the foot being stricken out. An informal discussion on the results of 1912 brought out practically the same idea from all the rule-makers that the game had been highly successful from a playing standpoint and should be played on the same lines until some flagrant trouble is discovered. ------- As a reminder, the kick-out being discussed is part of how the try after touchdown was made. At this time is was a place or drop kick anywhere on a line perpendicular to the point where the goal line was crossed - thus scoring under or near the goal posts was preferred as it cut the angle considerably. You could compensate some for a poor angle by kicking from farther out. If you scored far from the goal posts and didn't like the position for the kick, you could try a kick-out. That is, you would punt the ball from the point that the goal line was crossed to a team mate out in front of the goal. It was a live ball, but the receiver was entitled to a fair catch. If caught, that spot would be the place to kick the try from. If he muffed it, the try opportunity would be lost. This would be changed to the scrimmage play we're familiar with in 1922. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
I'm thinking of writing a post about a certain person whose name has appeared numerous times over the last few pages, Parke H. Davis, but if those of you reading the thread haven't already read the first parts of his 1911 book, Football: The American Intercollegiate Game, I recommend it. The major purpose of the book was to describe past games since football has always been more hesitant to employ statistics than baseball and the sport required a historian, a role Parke Davis would most famously assume in 1933. The first part of the book is an exercise in antiquarianism but a rather amusing one: quote:It would seem that human nature was not different in 28 B.C. from what it is to-day, for among the first acts of Augustus after settling his right to succeed his great uncle, Julius Caesar, was to demand a revision of the football rules. Augustus's grievance against the existing games, however, was their gentleness, which he considered too childish for Roman youths [...] The Emperor Augustus therefore selected a philosopher to effect the revision. This unknown philosopher, the original member of the Rules Committee, at last submitted his code of rules and they were approved by Augustus. Their introduction immediately divided the young athletes of Rome into two camps, each raging with debate and discussion, one for the new rules and other for the old. quote:In 1860, bellicose year that it was, these class encounters were waged with unusual vim, prodigious noise, and petty violence, for in the ranks of the combatants were some destined soon for glorious service upon the country's battlefields... But the faculty were not seers, so they determined to place upon these contests a quietus from which they never should awake [...] The student body at Harvard bowed to the decree, but determined that the event should not pass without being signalized in some extraordinary way. A great funeral celebration, therefore, was organized, the funeral of Football Fightum. A grave was dug in the Delta, a memorial tablet prepared, and a great pageant marshalled. As a capital feature the loudest-voiced if not the best orator at Harvard was chosen to deliver a eulogy [...] The grave then was closed and a tablet erected bearing the following inscription: quote:Traces of play with a football are to be found at Princeton prior to the Revolution. Fancy pictures as predecessors of Old Nassau's gridiron stars of to-day, Benjamin Rush, James Madison, Aaron Burr, and Philip Freneau [....] A search of the records discloses this significant minute in the archives of the faculty of the date of November 26, 1787: "It appearing that a play at present much practised by the small boys among the students and by the grammar scholars with balls and sticks, is low and unbecoming gentlemen, and inasmuch as it is attended by alternate heats and colds, and as we are accountable to their parents and liable to be severely blamed by them, therefore the faculty think it incumbent upon them to prohibit the students from playing this game." What was this wicked game? The year of 1787, surprising to state, is not too early for "town ball" or "rounders," the predecessors of baseball. Perhaps it was "tip-cat" and perhaps it was "shinny." Whatever it was it had to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
1913 The spring and fall rules meetings. The spring meeting is mostly bitching about officials, while the fall meeting is coaches looking for loopholes and asking weird questions about unlikely hypotheticals. Actual questions about the rules themselves are rare, which means that most people finally seem to understand them. ------ April 27, 1913, Sunday, The New York Times FOOTBALL MEN MEET TO CHANGE RULES Objections to Officials Causes New Rule to be Adopted at Conference. PHILADELPHIA, April 26. - Representatives from thirty-five colleges, preparatory schools and high schools, met here to-night with Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford College, Chairman of the Central Board of Officials, of the American Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee, and threshed out the question of desirable and undesirable officials for the 1913 football season. The question of how to avoid the complaints against officials was approached from every point, while the Central Board was complimented upon their work of the past and, by motion, requested to continue along the same line in the future. In view of the frequent protesting of officials about a week before a scheduled football game, it was decided that in the future each college and school must send a list of twelve desirable officials to the Central Committee, and this list must be endorsed by the coach and manager of the team. This list is to be in the hands of the committee by July 1, when completed schedules will also be sent. The Central Committee will assign the officials for each game to be played at that time, and no protest against an official will be allowed after Oct. 1. Some light upon the officials who had proven incompetent was thrown by Frank W. Cavanaugh of Dartmouth, who declared that old football players were the most flagrant examples of this sort. He stated that in many instances the men who had graduated from their college after a brilliant life on the gridiron knew less about football rules than men who had never played. Glenn Warner, coach of the Carlisle Indian School, suggested that every man proposed by an official, should have the endorsement of a certain number of coaches or secure the endorsement of the Athletic Directors of the college. A suggestion was made by W. I. Crowell of Princeton that the Central Committee appoint a board of examiners, who should inquire into the technical knowledge of every official in the game. Dr. Babbitt urged the early completion of the football schedules and their forwarding to the Central Committee. --- September 24, 1913, Wednesday, The New York Times FOOTBALL OFFICIALS DISCUSS NEW RULES Doubtful Features of Gridiron Game Interpreted by Prominent Players and Coaches. Football officials and coaches from nearly all of the Eastern colleges met at the Hotel Manhattan last night and discussed the interpretation of the rules. Walter Camp of Yale presided, and about him were grouped several prominent football men, who acted with Mr. Camp, and numerous kinks and wrinkles in the wording of the rules were smoothed out and a thousand or more questions were patiently considered. Those who assisted with Mr. Camp in interpreting the cloudy passages of the rules were W. S. Langford, Trinity; Crawford Blagden, Harvard; Parke H. Davis, Princeton; Al Sharpe, Yale; S. H. McClave, Princeton, and W. N. Morice, Pennsylvania. Most of the discussion hinged on technical points in the rules. Mr. Camp stated that a referee should use his own judgment in many cases where unusual plays came up, as it was impossible to anticipate the many unusual and queer situations which sometimes come up on the gridiron. Dave Fultz, the old Brown player, asked many technical questions because he said he often found that many Captains were sticklers for the technical interpretation of rules, and that it was necessary for the officials to be able to solve all sorts of plays quickly. The new rule this season about substitutes came in for much attention. Last year a player once withdrawn was allowed to return at the beginning of a subsequent period, but under the new rule a player may be substituted at any time during the fourth period, the last fifteen minutes of play. Mr. Camp pointed out that this rule left an opening which would give teams an advantage in substituting players in the last few minutes of play, but pointed out that the Rules Committee hoped that the rule would not be abused. The rule, according to some football men, makes it possible to rest up men just before the final period and then send them in to make a strong finish. The point was also brought up where a kicker was roughly attacked behind the goal line while making a punt. The rules provide that in the event of such roughness the guilty player is disqualified, but there was no provision where the ball happened to bound back on the field of play after such an interference. In such a case, where the ball drops behind the goal line, it will be counted as a touchback, and will be brought out to the twenty-yard line to be put into play. The rule relating to the shifting of the center, guard, or tackle position players from the defense to the offense created much lively argument. If any of the five center linemen are brought back of the offense, they must go back five yards before taking the ball. No provision was made for these center men shifting for defensive play. Mr. Blagden pointed out that it was the spirit of the rules to discourage the practice of calling back the big heavy linemen for offensive play. It seemed to be the general belief of most of the officials that the defensive men could be shifted about with little or no restriction under the present rules. One of the principal points of discussion was the onside kick. Under a change in the rules this year, all restrictions have been removed from kicks, and they may be made from anywhere behind the scrimmage line. Kicks may be returned by the defensive team at any time. It is also possible to return the kick-off by punting, although it is not likely that this practice will be widely resorted to. The removal of the five-yard restriction on all kicks will tend to open up the defense and make the game even more open than it is at present. It will also encourage onside kicks and quarter back kicks, which were an attractive feature of the game a few seasons ago. Several features of the forward pass were discussed, and a few changes were suggested in the wording of a few of the other rules. The rules as they stand at present are considered to be better than ever before, and tend to make the gridiron game better than it has been at any time in the past. The committee also ruled that the player who received an onside kick should receive the same protection as the receiver of a forward pass. Among the well-known football men present were George Brooke, head coach of Pennsylvania; Dr. Truxton Hare, Pennsylvania; Robert G. Torrey, Pennsylvania; David L. Fulz, Brown; Carl Marshall, Harvard; M. J. Thompson, Georgetown; Tom Thorpe, Columbia; James A. Evans, Williams; William Hollenback, Pennsylvania; W. R. Okeson, Lehigh; Edward Herr, Dartmouth; Jake High, Brown, and Neil Snow, Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
1913 Another landmark game, again involving West Point. This one was significant because it showed that the open game was the future, and the eastern schools had erred badly in ignoring it. The upstart Western hicks were playing a better brand of football, and now the eastern teams needed to swallow their pride and do some learning. ------ November 2, 1913, Sunday, The New York Times NOTRE DAME’S OPEN PLAY AMAZES ARMY Cadets Unable to Break Up Accurate Forward Passing of Westerners. WEST POINT, N. Y., Nov. 1. - The Notre Dame eleven swept the Army off its feet on the plains this afternoon, and buried the soldiers under a 35 to 13 score. The Westerners flashed the most sensational football that has been seen in the East this year, baffling the cadets with a style of open play and a perfectly developed forward pass, which carried the victors down the field thirty yards at a clip. The Eastern gridiron has not seen such a master of the forward pass as Charley Dorais, the Notre Dame quarter back. A frail youth of 145 pounds, as agile as a cat and as restless as a jumping-jack, Dorais shot forward passes with accuracy into the outstretched arms of his ends, Capt. Rockne and Gushurst, as they stood poised for the ball, often as far as 35 yards away. The yellow leather egg was in the air half the time, with the Notre Dame team spread out in all directions over the field waiting for it. The Army players were hopelessly confused and chagrined before Notre Dame’s great playing, and their style of old-fashioned close line-smashing play was no match for the spectacular and highly perfected attack of the Indiana collegians. All five of Notre Dame’s touchdowns came as the result of forward passes. They sprang the play on the Army seventeen times, and only missed four. In all they gained 243 yards with the forward pass alone. The topnotch forward pass performance of the game happened in the second period when Notre Dame carried the ball nearly the entire length of the field in four plays for a touchdown. Rockne caught McEwan’s kick-off and was downed on the fifteen yard line. Little Dorais then got five on a quarter back run. He then hurled the long pass to Pliska, which netted thirty yards. Dorais followed this with a beautiful placed heave of thirty-five yards to Rockne. Another forward pass to Rockne carried the ball to the five-yard line and then Pliska was jammed through the Army forwards for a touchdown. Football men marveled at this startling display of open football. Bill Roper, former head coach at Princeton, who was one of the officials of the game, said that he had always believed that such playing was possible under the new rules, but that he had never seen the forward pass developed to such a state of perfection. Except for a short time in the second period, when the Army team got going and hammered out two touchdowns by driving, back-straining work, the Cadets looked like novices compared with the big Indiana team. Just before West Point’s second touchdown, Notre Dame made a great stand under the shadow of its own goal. The Cadets had the ball on the on-yard line and Hodgson, Hobbs, and Capt. Hoge hurled themselves at the line, but it would not move. A penalty gave the Soldiers their first down and again the Army backs punched the rigid wall of the giant Westerners. Five times they hammered at the line and on the sixth crash Prichard bulled his way through for the touchdown. This was the first time Notre Dame has ever been on the army schedule, and a crowd of 5,000 came to the reservation to-day to witness the game. Report had the Indiana team strong, but no one imagined that it knew so much football. Dorais ran the team at top speed all time. The Westerners were on the jump from the start, and handled the ball with few muffs. The little quarter back displayed great judgment at all times, and was never at a loss to take the cadets by surprise. He got around as if on springs, and was as cool as a cucumber on ice when shooting the forward pass. Half a dozen Army tacklers bearing down on him in full charge didn’t disconcert the quarter back one bit. He got his passes away accurately, every one before the cadets could reach him. He tossed the football on the straight line for 30 yards time and again. The Army folks from Gen. Leonard Wood down to the youngest substitute on the scrubs were shocked at the way the Army team was put to rout. Head Coach Charley Daly paraded up and down the side lines nervously as he watched the depressing spectacle of the giant full back, Eichenlaub, tearing the Army line to shreds. The cadet corps in the stands yelled encouragement at the soldiers until they were hoarse, but it was a losing fight from the start. There was little of encouragement in the Army’s showing with the Navy game four weeks away. Their best playing was shown only in streaks. At times the Army backs punched through the Notre Dame line with genuine power behind their driving charge, but after they had hammered out two touchdowns, much of the snap was gone from their attack. In the last period the Notre Dame team also was pretty well played out. Going at top speed all the time slowed them up considerably at the end. But the wonder of it all was that covering all the ground they did didn’t tire them earlier. They had the ball most of the time, and were always eating up the distance which separated them from the Army goal line. McEwan kicked off for the Army and Dorais had taken only a few steps when he was buried under a pile of Army men. Eichenlaub tried the Army line, but it would not yield, and then the cadets let out a yell when the Army got the ball on a fumble. Both sides were penalized 15 yards for holding. Hodgson and Capt. Hoge jammed through the forward for big gains, but Hodgson was finally forced to kick. He booted the ball to Dorais on the five-yard line and the quarter back wiggled his way back to the 35-yard line before he was brought down. Pliska got around the end for five yards, and then Dorais tried his first forward pass, and it failed, so the quarter back punted to midfield. Dorais was tackled so hard after catching Hodgson’s return punt that he fumbled the ball, and the alert Meacham fell on the ball for the Army. Eichenlaub and Finnigan tore big holes in the Army’s front and Dorais’s second attempt at a forward pass failed. McEwan, the Army center, was hurt in the melee which followed and had to retire for a while, but Trainer Harry Tuthill patched him up and he got back in the game in a few minutes. Then Notre Dame cut loose. Some vicious line smashing by Eichenlaub and Pliska carried the ball down to the 25-yard line and Dorais hurled a beautiful forward pass to Capt. Rockne, who caught it a few yards from the goal line and rushed it over for the first touchdown. Dorais kicked the goal. Before the first period ended, Dorais got off several spectacular forward passes to Pliska and Rockne. A successful forward pass by the Army, Prichard to Louett, carried the ball down to Notre Dame’s 15-yard line, and from there Hodgson and Hobbs plowed their way to the goal line, Hodgson hurling himself over for the score. Woodruff was rushed in as a pinch kicker and booted the ball over the crossbar, tying the score. Soon after play was resumed Merillat was tackled so hard by Rockne that he was laid out, but came back into the game smiling just as soon as he got his wind again. Prichard then drove the Army team at top speed, and a fine forward pass, which he threw to Jouett, landed the leather on the five-yard line. Three times Hodgson and Hobbs tried to batter their way over the goal line, but got only as far as the one-yard mark. Here Notre Dame was penalized for holding and the Army fortunately got a first down. The Notre Dame team was making a desperate stand with the ball only six inches from the goal. Hodgson slammed himself into the scrimmage twice only to be turned back. On the sixth try, Prichard hurled his way over for a touchdown. Hoge missed the goal. The Cadets went wild with joy, but their happiness was short-lived, because Dorais then executed a string of forward passes which put the Army team completely up in the air. After the Army’s touchdown, Notre Dame, starting from the fifteen-yard mark, sailed serenely down the field for a touchdown, from which Dorais kicked the goal and put the Westerners in the lead, 14 to 13. Dorais fell back and the Notre Dame team spread out across the field. Dorais hurled that ball high and straight for twenty-five yards, and Rockne, on the dead run, grabbed the ball out of the air and was downed in midfield. Dorais lost no time in shooting another pass at Pliska, which netted thirty-five yards. The ball went high and straight, and Pliska was far out of the Army’s reach when he caught it. The partisan Army crowd for the moment forgot that the Army was being defeated, and burst forth in a sincere cheer for the marvelous little quarter back Dorais and his record toss of thirty-five yards. The ball again shot up into the air and was grabbed by Finnigan a few yards from the Army goal line. Pliska, behind compact interference, skirted the Army tackle for a touchdown, and Dorais again kicked the goal. Notre Dame had West Point on the run, and there was no stopping their wild, reckless advance. Dorais kept at his great work and had his ends and half backs dashing madly around the field chasing his long throws. Just before the end of the period Notre Dame had the ball on the Army’s 45-yard line close to the east side of the gridiron. Dorais barked out a signal, and the whole western back field and ends rushed across to the west side of the field. Dorais received the ball from his center and ran back several yards before he tossed the ball. He set himself and waited just a second too long. His throw was a wonder. It sailed far and straight through the air for nearly 40 yards, soaring toward the outstretched hands of Rockne. If this pass had been executed it would have been a dazzling trick, but just as Rockne was about to grab the ball Prichard hurled himself high over the Notre Dame Captain’s head and caught the ball. Then the first half ended. The teams fought stubbornly in the third period, the ball see-sawing up and down the field from one team to the other. The Army was fighting hard and stubbornly and threw back the Notre Dame charge. It was in this period that Dorais attempted a daring stunt. He dropped back to the midway mark, when Eichenlaub’s tearing rushed had been stopped, and tried to kick a goal from the field. There wasn’t a chance of his making it because the ball rose over the Army line only a few yards, and rolled down to the goal line. Hodgson, Hobbs and Milburn then began to tear up the Notre Dame line for generous gains, and marched down to the Notre Dame 15-yard line. Milburn was fresh in the game, and on two plunges he carried the ball 12 yards. Notre Dame was penalized for holding and it was Army’s ball on Notre Dame’s two-yard line. Then the Westerners mad the best stand of the game. As Hodgson threw himself into the scrimmage, he was lifted bodily by Rockne, who hurled him back for a loss. Millburn, too, was forced back for a loss by the fighting Notre Dame forwards. Prichard as a last resort tossed a forward pass over the goal line, where Merrilatt was waiting for it. The ever-awake Dorais was again on the job and caught the ball, saving Notre Dame from a touchdown. In the last period Finnigan made a fine twenty-five-yard dash around Merrilatt’s end, and after several bull-like rushes by Eichenlaub, the full back who would not be denied, the ball was finally carried over for a touchdown, after which Dorais kicked the goal. Notre Dame continued to run wild all over the field. The forward passes began to sail around in the air again, and hardly before the Cadets realized what was happening, Pliska, with the ball tucked under his arm, had galloped down the field to the five-yard line before the Army tacklers jumped on him and rubbed his leather-covered head onto the green turf. From here Dorais heaved a forward pass to Pliska, who caught it back of the goal line and scored another touchdown, and Dorais booted the ball over the cross-bar with graceful ease. There was no stopping Notre Dame now. They had a score thirst which would not be quenched. A forward pass, which was received by Finnigan, brought the ball to the 30-yard line, and the Army was penalized 15 yards for off side play. From here the Notre Dame scoring machine got together and began to hammer and hammer relentlessly at the tiring line of stubborn soldiers. Yard by yard they fell back before the rushing Westerners. Notre Dame, through the fierce plunges of fining and Eichenlaub, slowly but surely decreased the distance which separated them from another score.The Notre Dame full back pounded his way along without check until he was thrown over the line exhausted and limp as a sack of meal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
1913 What made the November 1 game with Notre Dame significant was not just the whupping ND laid on Army, but Army's response. Rather than cursing the goobers from nowhere and redoubling their efforts at running the ball, the Army coaches looked at exactly how Notre Dame had taken them apart and vowed to learn to do it themselves. ------ December 1, 1913, Monday, The New York Times OPEN FOOTBALL IS PROVED THE BEST West Point Victory Is Another Verdict for Open Game as Played This Season. A decisive triumph for the open style of play, as compared with the more conservative and less spectacular line bucking species, stands out as the main feature of the 1913 football season, which came to a close Saturday at the Polo Grounds, when the Army and Navy elevens clashed in their annual battle. It was a season of surprises and unexpected reversals, with the so-called big elevens suffering more than usual, and it closes with more general satisfaction over the playing code that any recent year has shown. The sponsors of the forward pass have been vindicated, and the full possibilities of the open game, put to severe tests in important contests, have been thoroughly impressed on those who were backward about giving up the old game. There is little doubt that football in the future will far excel that of the past as a result of the lesson which this season has taught. For New York it was the biggest football season since the gridiron game became the leading intercollegiate sport. Two big games were played at the Polo Grounds, both furnishing New Yorkers with an opportunity to see championship contenders who had clean records up to the time of their games here. The attitude of the New York Baseball Club in putting its big field at the disposal of the colleges for their games in another big boom to the sport. The handling of the Army-Navy game by President Harry N. Hempstead and Secretary John B. Foster of the New York Club was as close to perfection as the handling of such a big event possibly could be. The great seating capacity of the Brush Stadium make the Polo Grounds the logical place for such a game as the Army-Navy battle, and the success with which the affair was handled by the New York Club should lead to its selection for next year and other years to come. Army officials, at the close of Saturday’s game here, declared that they were highly pleased with everything and hoped to come back next year. If the question rests on West Point’s attitude Saturday’s game was not the last, as it was the first Army-Navy game in this city. From Annapolis comes a report that the Navy officials are desirous of having the game transferred to Washington. One reason advanced is that Washington is the seat of the nation’s official activities, and would be far more convenient for the great army of Government officials, foreign diplomats and others who attend the big game annually. Another reason advanced is the proximity of Washington to Annapolis, and the Navy offers the argument that the cadets can make the trip to Washington as easily as the middies can go to New York. Before the Capitol City gets the game, however, it will be necessary for some one to discover a playing field which offers far greater facilities for a big crowd than anything Washington can now show. The main reason for the transfer from Philadelphia to New York was the Franklin Field is no longer adequate to hold the great throng of Army and Navy followers who desire to see this annual game. Washington has nothing that closely compares with Franklin Field for seating accommodations, so the chance of a transfer to that city is not likely. The New York club is desirous of staging this big event annually, and New York City also wants the game. Such a gathering as the Polo Grounds stands held Saturday would be warmly welcomed in any city, and, judging from the past three days, New York is ready to outdo all others with its welcome. The long journey from Annapolis seems to be the only possible cause of a transfer, and the hope is high that the Navy officials will view this as not important enough to bring about a change. With the departure yesterday of the Army and Navy football squads for West Point and Annapolis respectively, the last sign of Army and Navy activity here, as regards the big game, passed out of view. But the game itself is not likely to be forgotten soon by those fortunate enough to witness it. Open play triumphed over a hitherto impregnable defense, and put the final stamp of approval on the new game. The novel scenes at the Polo Grounds which the gray-clad cadets and the blue-uniformed middies furnished made a lasting impression. A new gridiron hero was brought to view in the person of Louie Merrillat, and a series of Army reverses, dating back since 1908, was broken. It was a great day for the Army, just as it was for New York. The defeated Navy team gained all sorts of respect in a defeat that was most decisive in numerals, but not otherwise. The brand of football showed by the two teams at the Polo Grounds would not indicate any such margin of superiority as might be imagined from the score. West Point was better drilled in the open game than the more powerful Navy team, and besides knowing the new game's possibilities, West Point dared to test them at critical times. The middies had been schooled in the belief that a powerful defense for the conservative attack was sufficient when coupled with the kicking ability of Brown. The big Navy guard did more than his share, but West Point had something more than the old attack. The presence of Fielding H. Yost, Michigan’s famous “Hurry Up” coach, at West Point for more than a week before the game, was plainly manifest in the work of the Cadets. Coach Charley Daly got some new ideas of the worth of the Western style of play when Notre Dame traveled rough shod over his charges a few weeks ago and Yost’s visit was most welcome. The several intersectional clashes of the last season also pointed strongly to the fact that the West has been making much greater use of open football than the East. In practically every test of strength the West was the victor. Beyond the Alleghenies, the coaches have made the attack more important than the defense. In this section the idea has been to build up a powerful defense and trust to the fortunes of the game. The Western elevens have been running up big scores and the Eastern teams have been keeping them down, except when one team was of the practice variety. The East has now awakened to the knowledge that it takes an attack to win and that the new rules, used to the fullest of their opportunities, can carry a team to victory over a much stronger defense. ------ The last paragraph tells the story. Michigan ended its season on the 15th, so Army's coaches got on the phone to Fielding Yost to get him to come east and teach the Cadets how to run a passing game like Notre Dame's. They had only a week or so to work it out, but what he developed with them was enough to beat Navy for the first time in five years. Only about 5,000 people were at West Point to see the Notre Dame/Army game, although many heard about it. In contrast, Army beat Navy with their hastily-learned rudimentary passing attack in front of 50,000 people at the Polo Grounds. It was now obvious to everyone that the Westerners were right - the forward pass was not a gimmick, it was a powerful offensive tool that would define the future of football. Throughout December 1913, nearly all the major Eastern teams declared they would embrace the open game and were seeking coaches to achieve that end. I'll have one more post on Monday to wrap this all up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
1913 I will give the last word to Mike Thompson, the respected referee of the day. ------ December 3, 1913, Wednesday, The New York Times OPEN FOOTBALL PLAY HAS COME TO STAY Possibilities of Forward Pass Have Been Well Exemplified. BY M. J. THOMPSON, Football Referee. The football solons have at least realized the desired results of many years of hard labor. For the first time, practically speaking, since the inauguration of the game in this country can it be safely stated that a season has come to a close without requests from all quarters to change the rules. Year after year the Football Committee, composed of men representing different sections of the college world, come together to formulate a code to carry on the great college sport. After spending much time and consideration on points and regulations for the best interest of the game, their efforts have gone along nicely until about mid-season, when all at once a cry was set up that everything was wrong, that the game should not be played, and all sorts of information doled out to make the game better. Of course, as the rules were a few years ago, the sentiment was pretty strong, and it looked rather bad for the game. It seemed as though the coaches were advancing in their ideas much faster than the committee could lay down rules to hold them in check. In fact, there did not seem to be any team play between the rule makers and the ones in charge to direct the destinies of the game. After this point was overcome, and a more amicable understanding reached, the game took on a different aspect entirely. The last two seasons saw the game take on a new life, and after a sound test with a few added changes, the sport was placed on the right basis for the season of 1913. From present indications there seems but little for the Rules Committee to do when they meet next month. True, there will always be some, no matter how perfect the code is, who will be dissatisfied, but the prevailing opinion is that the rules are all right and have brought about the changes necessary to make what the general football public desired - a safe and interesting game. The lessening of injuries has made the game more popular than ever. Injuries are not entirely done away with or never will be in any true American athletic contest, but a close perusal of the reports of games played throughout the United States, and there are a great many more than the average reader has any idea of, will find that the injuries are very few, serious injuries being almost entirely eliminated in colleges and first-class prep schools, where proper facilities and attention are given to the boys. The serious injuries found by close investigation have been due to the lack of care and proper training of the candidates. One of the most important changes made for the past season was the bringing back of the onside kick. There was great opposition to it at the time, but after a long consideration it was accepted to satisfy the advocates that were in favor of it, they saying that it opened up the game and made many possibilities for unexpected and spectacular features. Its sponsors evidently fooled themselves or are holding back for next season, as the play has been very little displayed, and then only in minor contests, and from the way the defense was lined up and the inaccuracy of the men who were called upon for the kick there was very little chance of the play being successful. At present the time may not be given to the formula to perfect it as in the days of Williams of Pennsylvania and Wykoff of Cornell, two men who could almost place the ball on a short kick any place they wished and made not only a great deal out of it, but also a very well executed play. The forward pass was brought into prominence more this past season than ever before, and even by teams whose tutors and followers are and have been always opposed to it. The play looks as though it is in the code to stay and the advance and accuracy with which it was executed this Fall augurs well for a more scientific plan next season rather than the old haphazard take-a-chance way of shooting the ball as in past years. Those opposed to the play classified it with basket ball. I never could see it in that light if a well laid system was thought out for its execution. This has been performed by many coaches whose work I have witnessed this year, and I must say that although I was very much against the play when first introduced, I would be loath to see the play abolished. Although it looked good this year I believe that the forward pass is still in its infancy, and wise tutors will make a great success of it. One of the Western colleges invaded the East this year and to great extent showed the possibilities in the play much to the disappointment of the teams played who were completely puzzled in finding a defense and consequently took the losers’ end. Also in the East, there are teams that used the forward pass and open style of play with telling effect and especially this is so with West Point against the Navy. Great wonder has been expressed on all sides why the smaller colleges are so well able to compete with the larger ones; the only answer that can be given is that they have taken full liberties with the rules that are set forth while the big fellows who are still skeptical insist upon line plunges or when the ball is within hailing distance of the goal, depending upon a strong toe for a field goal to turn the tide, practically making the game subject to one man’s ability when the rules offer so many opportunities for general team play. There is no reason why a drop kick or a place kick should not take a prominent part in the game as it is today, as it is not only a pretty play when well handled, but has a peculiar tension on the anxious spectators until the goal is made or missed. Too much anxiety for a score with the thoughts of a good kicker on the team has resulted many times in the loss of a touchdown this season and also has had the tendency for the other ten men to let up in their work, thinking that within hailing distance the same amount of energy was not needed as the kick was certain to go. This is where the drop kicker is a bad asset for a team as too much responsibility is placed upon him. If the whole team can be relied upon to do its share at all angles within the field, a nice drop kicker, several of whom have been seen in the last season, is a wonderful asset to any aggregation. The trouble seems to be that the man who possesses the ability to do the drop kicking is in many cases left to his own discretion when to try it, when as a matter of fact little success can be obtained without a well-concerted attack, each and every play being especially planned and with a good drop kicker there is no reason why the team should not be built around him without taking the power or force from the rest of the team. Very few instances of this system have so far been brought to notice. The ones which were successful showed that they accomplished the end by a very careful study of the situation and at all times thoroughly demonstrated that their plans were well concerted. Criticism has been brought forward that in one of the big games a victor should have scored a touchdown, as every possibility was offered. Why worry about a touchdown when you have such an exceptional drop kicker who has clearly proved that he is safe at all times and that the rest of the team is working accordingly? Of course, this is a rare case and, perhaps, the only one this past season where so much liberty could be taken in drop kicking with success. Another reason for bringing about changes in the rules was the general dissatisfaction with so many tie scores, which left for a number of seasons a very unpleasant situation for a a football championship to be determined. We are getting back to the same predicament again, and so far it can be traced to too much dependence upon drop kicking and being satisfied to work on the defensive after getting one goal. As far as can be learned where teams have played the open game, few tie scores have resulted. The rules, as they are now, from general impression received, are to remain with us for some time, and it is an open question why more of the larger colleges do not take advantage of them and adopt a system accordingly. There must be a deep reason and only time will bring out the answer. The mass play, over which there was such bitter feeling some years ago, blaming such style for many injuries, is back again, although not under the old form. Prohibiting the man helping the runner was thought to do away with any attempt at mass formation, but some of the coaches, after careful study, have found a way, and it seems that the force with which these plays are pulled off is far greater than when the runner was hiked through. I cannot say that any serious injuries have resulted therefrom, but what I wish to convey is the method the tutors have evolved of still keeping in the old-time play - the man carrying the ball massing around two powerful interferers instead of the old-time slam-bang plunging. The speed and force which are put into these plays are far greater than at any time in the palmy days of the old mans play of guards back. There are still many opportunities to further build up and add to this style of play, and we are sure to see a great deal more of it next year. A team intent upon using this offense with a variety of the open-style play should prove a rather strong combination to beat and a most interesting game to witness. The officials in general had very little to contend with the past season, the entire code being universally interpreted. Of course, here and there the wording could have been made a bit clearer, so that there would not have been the least chance of a misunderstanding between the players and officials. ------ The war was over. Eight tumultuous years of power struggles, division, institutional rivalry, and radical rule changes - and the insurgents had won. More than any other institution, modern football owes the largest debt of gratitude to the athletic department of the United States Military Academy for its salvation. It was on December 7, 1905, that West Point decided to attend Harold McCracken's conference on the subject of banning football. They then dominated that meeting and convinced it to support reform of the game instead. It was West Point that suggested a new rules committee to replace the moribund, ineffective old one. It was West Point that organized and ran the fledgling NCAA and guided it through its first years, while the rest of the old guard did their best to undermine it at every turn. Finally, it was West Point that recognized that the game had changed, the masters needed to become students again, and demonstrated to the rest of the eastern elite schools that the new game was the superior product. This is not to imply that West Point's motivations were pure and selfless. They were driven primarily by their rivalry with the Naval Academy, and the fact that the latter had a role in the governance of the game while West Point did not. It is not a coincidence that all the new institutions for the game proposed by West Point ended up with them in charge. Nonetheless, they proved good stewards for the game and used their role wisely. Other major contributors were Harvard, Chicago, and Minnesota, the latter two primarily through two men, Lonnie Stagg and Harry Williams. Again, self-interest is part of the story. Yale's complaint that Harvard wanted to change the rules because they couldn't beat Yale fairly on the field was at least partly true. Stagg and Williams promoted the passing game in part because they couldn't get the players to be successful at the old game, and the forward pass offered the possibility of success with smaller, lighter players. Despite all the grudges, egos, and power struggles, the men involved did truly have the best interests of the game at heart and the Rules Committee were remarkably amicable for all the conflicting motivations pressing on them. That they were able to work together at all, let alone settle on the results they did, is remarkable. In 1918, the amalgamated Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee was formally dissolved. It was replaced by the NCAA Football Rules Committee, with the same membership, as all the institutions represented had finally joined up with the national organization. The NCAA itself would remain a toothless debating society until 1939, but that's another story. ------ Well, that's it for me. I have no more tales to tell at this point. Thank you all for coming along for the ride, it's been fun. There are plenty of other interesting stories to be told about the history of American football. I invite any and all to tell the rest of us some.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Thanks for the series. Highly enjoyed it. Hope that someone steps up to tell more stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:56
|
|
