|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued A couple days' worth of news, as they're each short and kind of related. December 12, 1905, Tuesday - The New York Times NEW FOOTBALL RULES EXPECTED THIS WEEK Plans for Coming Convention Interest the College Men. N. Y. U. SENDS INVITATIONS Where Faculties Stand on Regulating Actions of Students - Protest from Columbia Alumni The invitations to participate in the coming intercollegiate conference - “the Conference of Colleges and Universities in the United States Active in Athletics” - to be held on Thursday, Dec. 28, have been sent out from New York University, in accordance with the resolution of the meeting at the Murray Hill on Friday, to 200 institutions throughout the country. The purpose of the gathering and the plan proposed are clearly stated, and the answers that will be made by the leading universities in the East and Middle West will be awaited with great interest. On the response to the general call depends the whole success of the recent meeting. If but a few of the small institutions participate, little is likely to be done to affect the game one way or the other. In the meantime, interest will center largely in the coming meeting of the Rules Committee in Philadelphia on Friday and Saturday of this week, when the members of the committee will return after having laid the propositions of the first meeting before their respective constituents and advisers. This week’s meeting will be prepared to proceed to enact such changes as are decided upon, with the very evident purpose of getting the rules codified and complete before the first of the year, so that such colleges and universities as propose legislation upon the game can consider the reconstructed game, and not that which is to be abandoned. The meeting of the Harvard committee to consider rule changes will make even more radical recommendations than appeared at Philadelphia on Saturday, according to Coach Reid. “Only radical changes can avail if the game is to be continued at Harvard,” he is quoted as saying. An interesting expression of opinion emanates from a member of the Yale Faculty at this stage. He says it is the disposition of that body at New Haven to regard the active supervision of athletics as without its province, as bordering on paternalism - an attitude inconsistent with Yale ideas and Yale standard. Yale, he says, has always believed the students should control their own sports, make their own eligibility and other rules, and be governed only in an advisory capacity by the Faculty. He holds the Faculty has no more right to say that a student shall not play football as long as he maintains his class standards than it has to say he shall not eat oatmeal or shall not go sailing or swimming, or anything else he may care to do. This is very like the stand Columbia took officially when Duden’s father wrote to the authorities and invoked their aid in preventing his son from playing football. They replied that they could not govern the actions of the students outside the classroom. They evidently experienced a change of heart, or mind, subsequently, when they declared in effect that they should not play football, any of them. It would be interesting to know just where Columbia does stand on football, anyway, if they are leaning toward its rehabilitation, in view of the part their representatives took in the Murray Hill Conference. In accepting the invitation to attend President Butler wrote that Columbia’s representatives could take no part in the discussion of the first two questions - whether football should be abandoned, and if not, what measures should be taken to reform it - since they had already declared against the game. Yet they took a very prominent part in the discussion of how the new Rules Committee should be formed and what it should be instructed to do, Francis S. Bangs introducing the eligibility requirement for delegates to the coming conference and precipitating the controversy that arose there over. Columbia men are freely asking if this means the “reformed” game will again be played on Morningside Heights. The Committee on Student Organization of Columbia University has arranged to meet the Student Board of Representatives, composed of the Presidents of the various classes, and hear the student side of the football situation some time to-morrow. The students empowered the Student Board of Representatives to act for them when they met recently in a mass meeting in Earle Hall. The vernal opinion is that the committee will not grant the students’ request that the disbanding of the Football Association be put off until April. _____________________________________________________________________________________ December 13, 1905, Wednesday - The New York Times FOOTBALL RULES WAIT ON HARVARD’S ACTION Cambridge Committee’s Attitude Will Determine Reforms. QUESTIONS HELD IN ABEYANCE Unique Action of Northwestern University to Eliminate Ethical Evils - Rugby Recommended. Awaiting the action of Harvard on the question of rule changes, the football situation remains unchanged. The Harvard committee appointed to revise the code, consisting of Prof. Briggs, Dr. E.H. Nichols, Coaches Reid, Lewis, Deland, Forbes, and Wrenn, will hold nightly meetings until its work of revision is completed. The suggestions of the Crimson to the intercollegiate committee will then be sent to each member of the rules committee so that they may be prepared to act upon such of them as seem desirable at the coming meeting in Philadelphia on Friday. Meantime those members of the committee who made general suggestions will reduce them to specific recommendations and exchange them by mail to facilitate the final action in Philadelphia. The last obscurity regarding those suggestions has been cleared up from Ithaca. It was not clear just what Prof. Dennis meant when he declared that on a kick each member of the attacking side should be on side. It was supposed that this referred to securing the ball after the kick, not to the positions before the kick was made. This has proved to be the case. The promiscuous scramble that this would produce has not aroused enthusiasm among those looking to reduce chances of injury. From Chicago also comes information regarding Coach Stagg’s suggestion for interscholastic regulations different from the intercollegiate code. He wants the interscholastic game divided into shorter priors to do away with excessive strain, if necessary introducing three periods of fifteen minutes each. Other similar changes calculated to produce conditions more suitable to the undeveloped body are to be suggested. It appears that the rules committee, stung by the criticism that it was self-appointed and self-perpetuating, has asked specific authority from the respective institutions which it represents. It has had this authority in effect all along, and there is not any expectation that the personnel will be changed by the request. From the West come two new actions in the line of reform. Northwestern University has introduced ethical reforms in earnest. The students have petitioned the Faculty to do away with professional coaches, to appoint a graduate coach who shall be a member of the Faculty, to set apart two hours a day for general athletic exercise, during which every student shall be compelled to report on the athletic field to participate in some form of athletic exercise, to eliminate all gate receipts, and make the contests that are held open only to invitation, to support sports by popular subscription or assessment, and if necessary to carry out these ideas to do away with intercollegiate contests altogether. The ideas have taken firm hold on the student body, and are received with favor by the Faculty. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued ... And Harvard's reform committee isn't ready. December 14, 1905, Thursday - The New York Times FOOTBALL MEETING OFF AT HARVARD’S REQUEST Crimson Authorities Ask for Time to Formulate Plans. WRENN TALKS OF THE RULES Favors Limiting the Defense to Produce Open Play - Wants Foul Playing Clearly Defined There will probably be no meeting of the Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee in Philadelphia to-morrow night. Harvard, unable to handle the question of rule changes in the limited time at her disposal, has addressed Dr. Paul J. Dashiell, the committee Chairman, requesting a postponement to Dec. 22. The ‘request’ will unquestionably be granted, as Harvard is a very essential factor in the revision of the playing code at this time - the future of the game at Cambridge, it is said, depending on the thoroughness of the reformation undertaken. In another week’s time the Cambridge committee that has the work in hand will be ready to report, and the enactment of the new code can proceed and be completed in a two days’ session, in time to have the rules distributed by Jan. 1, as planned. Two sessions of the Harvard committee have been held this week - on Monday and Tuesday nights. An adjournment was taken to enable the members of the committee to attend to personal business, and another session arranged for Friday night, then again on Saturday, and, if necessary, early next week, until the work is completed. Harvard contemplates no pretense at reform. The entire code will be revised and the whole broad subject reviewed, thoroughly and completely. Thus far only the scope of the review has been discussed, the rules needing change, those needing elucidation, and the general objects fixed to be secured when the work is finished. The duties and powers of the officials will be most carefully defined, every opportunity afforded for the detection of fouls, just penalties provided, and means devised to increase the interest in the game, to eliminate brutality, restrict roughness, and limit the liability to injury, as far as it is possible to do so. “Bob” Wrenn, who is serving on the Harvard committee, returned to New York yesterday morning. In speaking of the task, he said: “The committee has proceeded only so far as to dissect the rules to ascertain exactly wherein proper objections to football lie and what means can be devised for the detection of foul and brutal play, and to improve the game generally. There has been nothing more than an interchange of individual opinion, no formulation of a policy. In general, I can say that Harvard favors the open game in theory, and wants foul play more clearly defined, as well as such penalties for it as are reasonable and just and can be enforced. The latter is most important. “Individually, I can say I do not think the ten-yard rule will produce open play. I will simply introduce more kicking. Nor am I thoroughly convinced that more kicking is to be desired. Certainly under that rule you could readily get too much and produce an indecisive game that would not do at all. Obviously the ten-yard rule alone will not produce end runs, even though they are more frequently tried. In fact, it would operate to prevent them, as with twice the distance to gain the center defense need not be so careful More attention could be paid to watching the ends. “In the modern game, the end run has fallen into disuse for no other reasons than that the defense has been immeasurably strengthened by legislation and by drawing men up from the backfield to back up the line. It is almost impossible to make an end run except by trick or delayed pass, involving surprise. No amount of legislation can make end run successful unless you change these conditions. The question of how to weaken the end defense, whether three or five men should be withdrawn five yards from the line of scrimmage and so on, remains to be determined, but if end runs are ever to return as they were in the old days, you must reverse the conditions that now exist and make them the more profitable. That is the kernel of the whole matter “I can say, too, for Harvard that she wants a more exact definition of holding - what it is, when and how the men may use their hands, and so on. I do not care to express any opinion on prohibiting tackling below the waist, and hurdling, on allowing either team to get the ball on kicks, or on the selection of officials, until the position Harvard will take is settled. There are difference of opinion on the committee as to what should be done on these points, and I do not care to give undue prominence to my personal views.” _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The possibilities of the forward pass back of the line of scrimmage further improves the play, since it introduces tricks of so many characters. At the same time it is so radical as to be doubtful of adoption. Sometimes history makes me  A ten paragraph breakdown of the proposed rule changes and the forward pass gets two sentences - one of which dismisses it out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:Sometimes history makes me I liked the penalty box idea, I can't imagine what the sport would look like but I can't really imagine what it actually looked like back then anyway. quote:It might be well, for instance, to adopt the rule in regard to rough work in hockey matches. There the offender is removed form the play for a period of two or three minutes, and no other player allowed to take his place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Here's something else I'm trying to work out. Do we know when it was that the concept of not stopping the game immediately a foul occurred, but waiting until after the next tackle to enforce the penalty, first appeared? If it's in the early chapters of Anatomy, I can't find it. Much like trying to work out when someone first had the idea of using a yardage chain to indicate where the line to gain was, it seems to be (like so many other things) something that nobody really thought to remark on until ~20 years after they first appeared, and then got irritatingly referred to in passing. (The earliest reference to it being a Thing that needed to be considered that I can find is about 1910, when officials were first issued with a highly amusing piece of equipment that I'll be talking about soon.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Here's something else I'm trying to work out. Do we know when it was that the concept of not stopping the game immediately a foul occurred, but waiting until after the next tackle to enforce the penalty, first appeared? If it's in the early chapters of Anatomy, I can't find it. Much like trying to work out when someone first had the idea of using a yardage chain to indicate where the line to gain was, it seems to be (like so many other things) something that nobody really thought to remark on until ~20 years after they first appeared, and then got irritatingly referred to in passing. The earliest reference I see to yardage as a penalty is 1886: quote:2. For intentional delay of the game or offside play, the penalty shall be five yards (this was in addition to disqualification). Penalties before that were simply stated as a down to the other team (which I presume means possession of the ball). Early on the role of the referee seems to have been to settle disputes from the Captains, who were responsible for detecting and calling fouls. In the various books I have which include directions for referees, I see no mention of when to call the foul - when it happens or when the play was over. Since most plays were pretty quick (and playing as fast as possible was the intent), I'd imagine in most cases a ref wouldn't have a chance to call a foul until the ball was down. They'd have to blow their whistle to stop the offense from running another one. By the way, Camp and Deland's book from 1896 describes the linesmen as using two canes tied by a cord to keep track of the 5-yard gain. Nelson claims the yardage chains weren't in use until the '40s or '50s, which I find hard to believe. ETA: In Parke Davis' book of 1911, he has descriptions of games from earlier. Two plays from the Army/Navy game in 1892 are described as: "Bagley punts for 35 yards, but it is brought back and given to Army for holding," and another, "Izard circles the end for 15. The ball is brought back and given to Army for holding." That sounds very much like the penalty is being enforced after the play. I had suspected that the after-play enforcement came along with the American scrimmage, and this seems to go along with that. The concept of the offended team having the option of declining a penalty and taking the results of the play instead first appeared in 1902, which wouldn't be possible if the ref was stopping play on a foul. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued December 15, 1905, Friday - The New York Times COLLEGE INFLUENCE, RAYMOND’S THEME Carnegie Gift Announced at Union’s Annual Dinner. EVIL EFFECTS OF FOOTBALL. Faculty Supervision of All Athletic Sports Strongly Advocated by the Speakers. At the annual dinner of the Union College Alumni Association, held at the Hotel Manhattan last night, a gift by Andrew Carnegie was announced. [non-football stuff snipped] President Raymond in his remarks spoke especially of football and its effects and the influences of colleges in counteracting the evil of commercialism. “The evil of commercialism,” he said, “is a taint to be feared rather than that which some think adheres to money itself. What is handled may soil the hands, but the spirit with which it is handled may soil the soul, and that is a greater consideration.” He spoke of the death of Harold Moore as the result of injuries received in the Columbia[sic]-Union football game. He said that the Faculty of Union had decided not to sanction any more football games until the game itself was changed. He said that Moore had not died as the result of any intentional roughness, as the game was an exceptionally clean one. The death of the young man, he said, was an awful price to pay for a football game. “He will not have died in vain,” said President Raymond, “if his death results in the reform of athletics. “No duty is plainer or greater,” continued Dr. Raymond, “than that of keeping our colleges free from the taint of the commercial spirit. It was Goliath’s spirit that made Goliath’s sword an unholy weapon. When David took it he made it a weapon of righteousness. It is the taint of the commercial spirit, the spirit that puts outward success before everything else, that we are to keep out of our colleges. It may be a wise dispensation of Providence that keeps professors on meager salaries. At all events they are the least worldly of men, and so long as the Faculty dominates the life of an institution there is little danger of corruption. “But in recent years the supremacy of the Faculty has been challenged by the abnormally developed athletic interests of the college, and it is from that direction that we have the most to fear, because the spirit of modern athletic contests is essentially the commercial spirit.” Dr. Raymond made it plain that he did not refer chiefly to professionalism and receipts, but to something deeper - the spirit of modern business, at least in its higher aspects. “There is the evil that has developed the brutal and dangerous features of football,” concluded Dr. Raymond, “and no reformation will be complete that does not reach the root of the evil, an inordinate desire for spectacular success. This may be accomplished only as athletic interests come more directly and completely under Faculty control.” ————— ORANGE, Dec. 14 - James J. Hogan, the former Yale player, addressed a gathering of Yale alumni here last night and spoke of the football agitation as a product of newspaper sensationalism. His address was largely an assault on newspaper men, and with respect to football its most striking statement was: “If the success of the Yale-Harvard games depends upon the presence of 40,000 spectators, then I say it is time to give up the game,” whatever that may mean. Mr. Hogan on the subject of commercialism made no reference to his own experiences. ————— Dr. Paul J. Dashiel, as Chairman of the Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee, has announced the postponement of the meeting scheduled for to-night in Philadelphia until next Friday, in compliance with Harvard’s request. To-night the Cambridge committee to determine Harvard’s policy will meet. ————— CAMP TALKS OF RULES. Says Opening Up Play is Absolutely Essential on the Gridiron. NEW HAVEN, Dec. 14 - In a statement of Yale’s position on the rule changes in football to-day Walter Camp said that upon minor changes both Yale and he would be willing to make concessions, but that upon the two points of opening play and lessening the liability to accident and roughness the committee must act or its work is doomed to failure. He states that the public demands direct legislation that they can understand, that the time is too late after a year of criticism for experimental propositions. Mr. Camp laid special stress on the adoption by the committee of a ten-yard rule and one forbidding tackling below the knees. He considered the purposes of these rules, namely, opening the play and lessening accidents and unnecessary roughness, as absolutely essential. Mr. Camp states that the committee is practically agreed on measures tending to eliminate brutality and provide competent officials. He also suggests shortening the playing halves, a distance penalty for time taken out at the request of the Captain, that the ball be called dead when any part of the person of the runner save his feet touches the ground, more rigid definition of the use of hands and arms, and better protection for a man catching the ball. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Zebra Tales, Part 2: Bow ties are cool One of the many suggestions to come out of the crisis of 1905 was the establishment of a central board to oversee officials for all contests and ensure consistent rulings. 100 years later, they still hadn't solved that problem, and the attendant issues of identical situations being ruled differently depending on who was calling your game (this was the not-entirely-unreasonable reason for the Pac-10's historic, and no longer current, insistence that all games involving their teams should be called by their officials) - what finally did it was wangling it so that CFO (the latest attempt to get national harmony) controlled all the bowl game assignments, and they could then threaten the So anyway, back in a time before bowl games, when tenth-year sophomores still roamed football fields. There was a lot of enthusiasm for a good, proper central board of officials going around, but really, when it comes down to it, nobody except officials actually gives a flying gently caress how games get called as long as they look vaguely competent and credible, so of course the enthusiasm and best laid plans just kind of petered out into nothing. There was one very important rule change (spoilers!); the proposal that we've seen flying around a lot to have two umpires was approved, although both institutions could agree not to use the second umpire, and critically, every official was given the power to report fouls to the referee on their own initiative. Although it was understood that the umpires had primary responsibility, the Linesman could now intervene when he saw something out of their view. Four officials were generally regarded as a success. Different people experimented with different options over the next two years; some games saw two officials in one backfield or another, and some saw one umpire standing in front of the Linesman initially, and then moving away after the snap. However, the most popular method was to have the second umpire stand a long way from the line of scrimmage in the defensive backfield, and favouring the sideline opposite the Linesman. Moving him away from the heat of battle allowed him to do several things; he could assist with the sideline opposite the Linesman, take a wide view of play to detect fouls away from the immediate area of the ball, and mark forward progress on long breakaways - a critical advantage after the adoption of the forward pass. The position was renamed "Field Judge" in 1907 and his duties were codified, although he was still optional. In 1915, his presence was mandated, and he was also made the timekeeper. The next problem to be addressed was whistles. Each official carried a whistle, each official could report penalties to the Referee. Some officials (like the Linesman, who had started coming further and further onto the field so he could see what was going on in the middle) were now allowed to assist the Referee with forward progress. This created problems of exactly the sort that Camp had predicted on the introduction of the Umpire back in 1887 ("it will be a difficult matter to separate their lines of duty"), and the Rules Committee in 1909 found itself needing to adopt a rule to govern what should happen if an official blew his whistle before the ball became dead. It's still there today and still says more-or-less the same thing - if a whistle is blown inadvertently, or a signal given inadvertently that indicates the ball is dead, then the team in possession (or the team last in possession) is given the option of possession at the spot where the ball was when it was inadvertently declared dead, or else to replay the down at the previous spot. Also this year it was mandated that the Referee should always line up behind the offense. However, just having a rule about them didn't do much to decrease the number of inadvertent whistles. It was at about this time that official signals were first invented; partly to better communicate to the spectators what was going on, and partly to give officials ways to communicate that they thought the ball was dead without requiring a whistle; because the solution that the nascent officials' associations and college conferences were arriving at was to take whistles away from certain officials. By 1924, they had arrived at a consensus that only the Referee should have a whistle, and the Rules Committee also approved of the experiment being conducted by certain whistle-less Field Judges of carrying a pistol to signal the end of periods. And, lacking whistles, this naturally required the other officials to get the horn. No, really. I just spent the past hour trying to dig up a wonderful old photo of an official's kit circa 1925, but of course it's fallen into the aether and can't be found again for the moment. But I assure all of you that the officials without whistles started carrying horns (usually small ones strapped to the wrist, although the odd eccentric used a hunting horn around the neck) which they could blow at any time (because it couldn't be confused with a whistle) to alert the Referee that they had a foul to report. It's the second most hilarious thing I've ever heard of. (The most hilarious thing is coming up at the end.) So anyway, the twenty-year period between 1905 and 1925 saw, believe it or not, some actual improvement and standardisation. The central boards never really worked out, but officials' associations took off. They provided a framework for newer officials to learn from those with more experience, and most of them were soon supplying officials to multiple sources. This allowed them to, for example, start newer officials off with some high school games while they learned rules and mechanics, where they could be watched by experienced colleagues, and only permitted to officiate important college contests once they had demonstrated proficiency. Officials' uniforms also began to standardise and become more athletic, and by about 1920 most of the new generation of officials wore a white shirt with a bow tie, knickerbockers or plus-fours with long socks, athletic shoes, and a hat of some sort, sometimes a newsboy-style cap, sometimes a beret, but something less formal than the Homburgs, trilbies and pork pies that had been worn with a full suit (the Referee often went without a hat to identify himself). I went on Youtube the other day in the hope that when I got to the 50s with these posts I could start bringing in some video; and guess what? There's a large-and-growing store of old football films dating back much earlier than that, so let's have a look at a few clips. It's possible to literally see the game evolving, and the officials evolving with it. This is the 1916 Rose Bowl Game. There's only a little action, starting at 4:56. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjT5Fk4WdiM It's a bit harum-scarum, but you get the idea. Referee Eckersall is pioneering the white-shirt look; his colleagues are still opting for full suits. The Field Judge is still very much a second umpire, hurrying in towards piles of players; and the Linesman is clearly from the "hang out on the sideline" old school. This next video is much better. If you're in this thread, you'll love it. 25 minutes of action from the 1919 Princeton-Harvard game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHld-u-vQ64 Here we can see the Linesman, carrying his stick, much more prepared to get close to the action and find out what's going on. The Field Judge appears to be slightly offended at being asked to stop being a second umpire; he's still in a suit and tends to appear a lot just creeping into frame near the end of the play and then wandering off again without doing much (nowadays we'd congratulate him for providing useful cleanup services for the rest of the crew and not getting unnecessarily involved, then ding him hard for his poor fashion sense). The Umpire himself is a long way off the line of scrimmage by modern standards, and I do wonder how much he can actually see back there. Perhaps he's trying to avoid seeing things that might upset him? 53 seconds, you won't catch a modern white hat sprinting like that for anything except dinner; and see how they all just leave the kicker behind, completely uninterested in the half a dozen players having their fun and taking shots at each other in back play. 2:48, check out that speedy penalty enforcement. No signals! With sideline coaching still a hot topic, why does anyone other than the captains need to know what the penalty's for? 4:10, how uninterested is the Referee in three players bearing down on the passer with malice aforethought? And then they just scrape themselves off the turf and continue. I could go on like this all day! It's amazing to watch, and that's without paying any attention to the football. Finally, a bunch of snippets of newsreel footage, circa 1923, from Michigan and Michigan State. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZ8w3e8Tc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbzGOZEZcNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUgHrtrugwM Uniforms continuing to drift closer together, Linesman getting further on the field. I have no idea why they keep apparently signalling touchdown in that first one when the ball's nowhere near an end zone. Third one, check out the Umpire just chilling up against the goalpost. As you do. Long and the short is, by the mid-20s, the associations were beginning to succeed in bringing people through the ranks as officials, rather than administrators, coaches and ex-students who were given whistles and told to go do a job; they were starting to actually become worthy of the name. In some places. Some of the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDNI3xwTbO8 Wheeeee! Ahem. And some of them were even starting to talk to each other properly, and share ideas with each other! Next time: How the zebra got its stripes...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued A couple related articles from Yale as we count down to the big conference. December 16, 1905, Saturday - The New York Times YALE OUT OF FOOTBALL REFORM CONFERENCE Camp Announced His Opposition to a General Convention. FEARS ILL-CONSIDERED WORK Other Big Colleges Expected to Decline to Join Movement - Camp’s Advocacy of Open Play. Yale is out with the first declaration against the general conference of colleges and the committee of eleven to revise the football rules She has not yet replied to the invitation sent out from New York University in accordance with the resolution of the “Conference of Twelve Colleges” for a general conference on Dec. 28 at the Murray Hill Hotel in this city. Her position toward that conference is announced by Walter Camp, who says that Yale will have no part in any convention of 200 universities to select a committee of eleven, because such a committee would either make too many or too few changes in the rules. If that general conference would keep its hands off the technical end of the game there would be no objection among the larger colleges to participating in it. The tirades against the existing order of things, that were both intemperate and ignorant of true conditions, have unquestionably scared Yale out. It need not surprise any one if Harvard, Princeton, Pennsylvania, and Cornell also decline to be parties to it. What place Columbia can have in reforming a game she has officially abandoned is also hard to understand. There is another feature of Camp’s pronunciamento that deserves attention. He says minor changes can be passed over, but two main changes must be made - opening up the game and limitation of injuries; that these two main objects must not be obscured by the advocacy of other measures. There has been no objection raised by any member of the Rules Committee to Camp’s ten-yard rule; in fact, all but one declared in favor of it. Nor was his hurdling proscription attacked, and certainly his tackling-below-the-knees rule was not, for every one realized there was no need to enact it, since it is now a rule. The ten-yard rule, with no other change to effect open play, is not what is desired. The opinion is widespread that other changes are needed in addition to it. The changes other than those Mr. Camp advocated last year were voted down, as were Mr. Camp’s, because they were believed by the majority to be ineffective by themselves, and the general committee was not prepared to take radical steps that were purely experimental. In the present state of the public mind those radical changes are necessary. ————— Football Prohibited in Ogdensburg. OGDENSBURG, N. Y., Dec. 15 - The City Council to-day took action formally prohibiting the playing of football here until the game has been radically modified. The game was denounced in the council proceedings as hazardous in the extreme, and it was declared it could not be made a proper sport until rules eliminating all chance for brutality are adopted generally. _____________________________________________________________________________________ December 17, 1905, Sunday - The New York Times BUSINESS OF ATHLETICS TO BE REVOLUTIONIZED Yale Considers Eliminating All But Two Football Games. MORE STUDENTS IN THE PLAY Team to Play Harvard and Princeton to be Chosen from Interclass Series of Contests Signs are multiplying to indicate that the agitation over football will ultimately result in a tremendous upheaval throughout the college world that will carry down the elaborate structure that has been building for twenty years at an enormous cost of time and money to complete destruction. It may be averted for a year or more, but the undercurrent of feeling that is undermining the “business” of college athletics is too strong to be gainsaid, and whether the upheaval be violent or gradual depends on the degree to which those who are at the helm of the athletic interests at present bend to or resist the force applied. For years voices have been raised in annual protest against the growing tendency toward exaggeration that has been yearly manifested. In spite of them the interests have magnified until it seemed that the restraining force must be puerile and ineffectual. But year by year the volume of its protests has multiplied until by virtue of its ver insistence it has reached the fountain heads. The agitation against football this year has been more formidable than ever before, but it has really been a surface agitation, and could result in nothing more than technical reform. The larger movement does not concern the technical game at all, and cares little or nothing for the eradication of brutality, which is grossly exaggerated; for the limitation of injuries, which are really infrequent and unimportant in the main, or for the elimination of those objectionable features incident to improper eligibility standards. It is concerned solely with the spirit of the sport, which has puffed up until it considers itself subservient to no interest in university life, when it threatens to lose sight of the very essence of what the students are gathered together to attain - an education and culture that shall fit them for life’s battle. At Yale three weeks ago a committee of the Faculty was appointed to investigate financial abuses charged against the athletic management. At a recent Faculty meeting a resolution was offered to investigate the whole relation of athletics to the student life. A special meeting of the Faculty was to consider the big question last week, but it was induced to postpone all action until after the close of the present term with the Christmas holidays. In January when the new term begins the motion will be made in the Faculty to take up the subject and the investigation will officially begin. At Harvard a similar action is contemplated, and unless some mighty good reasons can be advanced for continuing the present system there will be radical and wholesome reforms inaugurated. That is the real reason why Yale has declined to take part in the general conference of colleges in this city on Dec. 28, because they feel the question is one which is peculiarly their own and can be settled by no one but the Yale Faculty. Harvard feels the same way, and a declination to join in the general movement is anticipated from Cambridge. What other large universities may do is a question, and Harvard will not be alone in their action. The evils the Faculties will consider concern the technical game of football in no way. They concern football only directly because that is the most import an sport in college life. They deal with the exaggeration of the interest in the game; they concern the great deal of money mad and expended in its pursuit; they concern the comparatively small number of students participating in the sport; they concern the stress laid upon the importance of victory. The whole spirit of the game, its moral influences, will be under investigation. Means will be taken to minimize the public interest in the sport and the excitement incident to it. Something will be done to prevent the distraction of the student mind by too many and too important games. Measures will be provided to reduce the revenue derived from the sport and to restrain the extravagance incident to it, and steps will be taken to provide for the more general participation of the whole student body in it. What these reforms will be is not determined, but they will be real and effective, if it means overturning tot the whole athletic structure. Northwestern University has already taken very similar action. The students, acting under inspiration from the Faculty no doubt, precipitated it by resolutions to the Board of Trustees. The Faculty took prompt action in ratifying the recommendations and the Trustees will unquestionably approve them. These recommendations were general. The only definite thing done was to ask the limitation of gate receipts and the compulsion of the entire student body to take part in athletics, to the exclusion of intercollegiate contests if necessary. The Yale movers suggest the limitation of the intercollegiate games in which Yale shall take part to two. These two are to be played one at New Haven and one out of town. This means only a Princeton and a Harvard game. It is further suggested that the ‘Varsity team for those games be selected from the best men who appear in a series of interclass contests, which shall take the place of the other intercollegiate games, and which shall employ at least 25 per cent of the student body. They frown on any seclusion of a body of players who shall be “‘Varsity team candidates,” and require that the preparation for the inter-university contests shall be confined to two or three weeks’ practice, in conjunction with the class contests. This all sounds chimerical, the ideal of a dreamer, but it is the English system, is successfully employed abroad, and provokes none of the disagreeable features that American programs involve. Every college has its natural rivals whom it could play, in defeating whom it is directly and vitally and legitimately interested. By cutting out games with others, all this unseemly talk of championships, which give the game so professional an aspect, would be prevented. If once introduced,those who regard the plan with favor believe it would develop an immense and immediate popularity among the students themselves, for whom the games are truly devised. It might not please the public, but what interest, they argue, has the public in gentlemen’s contests? To the thinking man, certainly, the plan has immense benefits and few objections. It answers every argument based on present abuses against the continuance of the game. Perhaps it is too radical to be adopted offhand, but the reforms that will come will be along that line, with that end in view, and in a few years’ time the system outlined, or a better one based upon it, may be expected to be in force. Men like President Eliot and President Hadley do not shake their heads over football for years to no purpose. They are loath to stop what plainly is so popular a sport. But they are determined to tame it and bring it within bounds. And the suggestions recited herein have found favor with them. It remains for the next month to determine how far they are prepared to go. Meantime, watch for signs of the coming revolution. _____________________________________________________________________________________ The second article is mainly speculation and opinion, based apparently on a conversation with a single Yale faculty member, as the overall feeling at Yale was strongly pro-football and the reform committee spoken of would come to nothing. It gives good insight, though, into the feelings of the times and some of the other ethical problems that football specifically, and college athletics generally, were facing. The first article sounds ominous for good reason, because it is. The larger schools are studiously ignoring the NYU reform conferences and anything associated with it. They were not without justification, however. There was a similar (though smaller) uprising after the 1894 season, producing a separate rules committee and resulting in some significant variation in rules based on conferences, size, and geographical area. This produced considerable confusion in the 1895 season, and the new rules committee and process fizzled out. Walter Camp was the one who stepped in and picked up the pieces, forming a new rules committee that included representatives from outside the Ivy League, namely Chicago and Annapolis to try to increase representation and produce a new, consistent set of rules. Hence Camp, and Yale in general, views this whole reform process with some disdain and are convinced that, like the last time, it will all blow over once people settle down a bit. Camp's plan is to stick to his guns and do it his own way, and eventually everyone will fall in line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued December 18, 1905, Monday - The New York Times FOOTBALL REFORMERS PLAN FOR BUSY WEEK Chancellor MacCracken’s Meeting Has Not a Rosy Outlook. AWAITS HARVARD’S ACTION Rules Committee Promises to Adopt New Code at Its Meetings on Friday and Saturday. It looks as though Chancellor MacCracken and his interesting theoretical football reformers were not likely to have an overwhelmingly successful meeting on Thursday week, when the General Convention of Colleges and Universities Active in Athletics Throughout the United States gathers at the Murray Hill Hotel in response to the invitations of the Conference of Twelve Colleges. It looks very much as if they would give a performance of “Hamlet” without the melancholy Dane. Yale has announced her declination to participate in the gathering, Harvard has declared the time unpropitious for the purpose declared, and Princeton has taken a similar position. The University of Pennsylvania and Cornell are not likely to be found represented when the roll is called, and as the Intercollegiate Rules Committee, on which each of these five colleges is officially represented, declares it will enact and announce the new code of playing rules, reformed in accordance with the suggestions of the best football minds in the college world, before the convention gathers, there will not be much left for its Rules Committee of eleven to do. It may affirm the changes made by the Intercollegiate Committee or make rules of its own, but it is not exactly clear what following it will find throughout the college world to play the game it devises. Interest will center this week in the meeting of the Intercollegiate Committee in Philadelphia on Friday and Saturday, and in what can be learned meantime of the recommendations of the Harvard committee which has been in session all last week to revise the code. The Harvard committee has taken up its work in a very methodical way, and the changes it determines upon will carry a lot of weight with the general committee when it meets late in the week. The Crimson board is composed of seven able and technically skilled men. They are all favorable to the game, understand its value and its weaknesses, and are disposed to do all that can be done for its preservation and its continuance along proper lines. While the changes it will recommend will be radical, they will not be inconsistent with the spirit of the sport, and above all they will not be impractical. It is now pretty thoroughly understood what is desired and what can be done. The open game is almost assured, and effective changes will be made to restrict rough and unsportsmanlike play and to limit injuries. The latter is the most difficult and most troublesome problem the committee has to face. It is safe to say the result of the committee’s deliberation will be eminently satisfactory to the college world in general and to the leading exponents of the game in particular. What Chancellor MacCracken and his co-workers do later will be awaited with considerable curiosity, but the real attention of the followers of intercollegiate athletics will then center in the ethical revolution that is planned at Yale, Harvard, and other big universities to be begun in January. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Today we have more news from Columbia, a bit of information on Harvard's plans, and some insight into what happened at the first White House meeting and the results. December 19, 1905, Tuesday - The New York Times STUDENTS TURNED DOWN BY COLUMBIA FACULTY Football Association Must Go with the Present Year. NO CONSIDERATION GRANTED Undergraduates Only Asked for Extension of Time and That Was Refused - Indignation Meeting. That there is but small sympathy on the part of the authorities of Columbia University with the endeavors of the students to have football once again placed on a firm basis at the Morningside institution was evidenced yesterday when the Committee on Student Organization refused the petition of the undergraduates to have the lease of life of the Football Association extended from Dec. 31 to April 15. The action is taken to indicate that there is practically no chance of the gridiron sport ever being resumed by the students of Columbia. The men prominent in undergraduate affairs, however, are still determined to fight what they consider the arbitrary and uncalled-for action of the Faculty. As soon as the text of the report of the committee was made known about the campus the students decided on another mass meeting, which was held in Earle Hall at noon. At the meeting on Dec. 5 the students confined themselves to a mild statement of their feelings, but at the meeting yesterday they were quite demonstrative and felt bitterly the refusal of their petition. One of the students prominent in undergraduate affairs said: “Our previous petition was couched in perhaps a mild-mannered way, but we were nevertheless just as determined as if we had been more demonstrative. This the Faculty seems to have overlooked, taking our apparently meek attitude as one of weakness. When the students convened in the mass meeting, President Macbeth of the senior class, and Chairman of the Student Board of Representatives, stated that the gathering was for the free speech of the students, and that as it was a student meeting the men might say what they pleased in regard to the situation. He further stated that there were no members of the Faculty present. The students profited by this, and were decidedly outspoken in their denunciation of the action of the Faculty. Many men spoke and several expressed the view that if the Faculty wanted the men to express their opinions in a more determined manner they could do so now that their mild and courteously worded petition had met with but scant consideration. The men at length decided to appeal to the University Council, which meets this afternoon, to act on the recommendation of the Committee on Student Organizations that football be abolished. A committee of five men was appointed to draw up resolutions setting forth that the abolishment of football was a detriment to college spirit and a disregard of the rights of the students. The committee is composed of James A. Taylor, Rudolf L. von Bernuth, William R. Porter, Albert M. Eisberg, and Gustavus A. Younger. The resolutions will be turned over to Robert W. Macbeth, who will be at the meeting of the University Council when it convenes this afternoon. ————— “HOLDING” IN FOOTBALL Harvard Code Will Define Use of Hands Specifically Harvard is still at work on her codification of the football rules. “Bob” Wrenn returned to New York yesterday, unable to spare more time to the revision. He said that the general outlines of the Harvard policy had been determined upon, but that the specific wording in many cases was still undetermined. It has been settled that Harvard will advocate open play in general, with specific recommendations looking toward the weakening of defense, that she will favor the elimination of hurdling and the enforcement of the rule against low tackling, that she will advocate measures to secure better officials and to have them enforce the rules most stringently, though she proposes to be most particular not to have penalties adopted that are more severe than the offenses merit, and to have the rules on the subject of fouls most explicit in order to avert one of the main sources of difficulty arising from the different interpretations placed upon the rules by different officials. The effort to have Yale agree to a definition of the rule was the subject of a charge brought by Coach Reid against Head Coach Jack Owsley of Yale and Coach Hildebrand of Princeton. Reid stated that after the three coaches had met President Roosevelt at the White House they talked the situation over and pledged themselves to do all that they could to carry out the President’s suggestions. One of the things determined upon was a specific interpretation of the holding rule that would reduce infringements and eliminate roughness. Reid was delegated to draw up such a rule. He did this, and sent it to Princeton and Yale, and both refused to abide by it, and at a subsequent meeting held in New York on the night of Yale’s game with Columbia disclaimed any such interpretation. As a result nothing was done, and Harvard says it was in breach of such an understanding that the play occurred that resulted in Quill’s (of Yale) breaking Burr’s (of Harvard) nose. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued More on Columbia, and some good discussion of the Rules Committee and its internal politics. December 20, 1905, Wednesday - The New York Times FOOTBALL SITUATION REMAINS UNDETERMINED Columbia Council Acts on Students’ Plea, but is Silent. VERDICT EXPECTED FRIDAY Intercollegiate Rules Committee to be Asked to Waive Unanimous Consent to Insure Action Although the University Council of Columbia University met yesterday afternoon and took final action on the abolition of football, the fate of the Football Association, which was ordered to disband on Dec. 31, still hangs in the balance, as far as the student body is informed. No announcement was made by the council of its decision, other than a promise of a public statement to-morrow. The students were represented at the meeting of the council by Robert W. Macbeth, who presented a petition drawn up by five of the most prominent undergraduates in the college, protesting against the Faculty action. The petition is the second that the students have presented. It was couched in quite emphatic terms, and recited fifteen reasons for their belief that the action of the Faculty was precipitate and ill-advised. The utmost care was taken to preserve the secrecy of the council conference. Not a word of the proceeding leaked out. There were plenty of rumors floating about the campus, however, to the effect that the council had refused to accede to the students’ request that football be allowed to continue until April 15, and there were a few that said the request had been granted. But no authentic advice could be obtained. —— The proposal will be made at the meeting of the Intercollegiate Rules Committee on Friday to suspend the unanimous consent regulation and permit the adoption of amendments to the rules by majority vote. Heretofore it has always been the custom of the committee to enact changes only by unanimous consent. No matter how firmly convinced the other members of the committee might be of the desirability of a suggested change, if one refused to see its virtues there was no chance for its adoption. It was this fact that led to the long, protracted sessions of last year, when radical changes were up for consideration. Many of them were approved by the majority, but a few men on each provision held up the action of the whole body, and the unaltered code was the result. This year it is felt that the welfare of the game depends upon the radical change of the rules along generally understood lines, and the committee cannot afford to run the risk of any valuable suggestions overlooked because of the failure of a single man to consent. It is probable in the view of these conditions that the committee will agree to suspend the rule as far as this year’s revision is concerned. The unanimous consent regulation was adopted at the inception of the Rules Committee for the excellent reason that Yale and Princeton were at loggerheads with Harvard and Pennsylvania, and neither side would agree to go into the conference to revise the rules unless pledged that they would not be forced to accept objectionable feature by the swinging of the outside votes one way or the other. It was at the time that legislation was aimed at Pennsylvania’s guards back system, and Harvard stood with the Quakers on the question as to whether games were to be won on the field or in legislative bodies. The rule has been observed ever since, and will probably always be retained as a safeguard against the invasion of the legislative sessions by college politics. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Henry MacCracken lays down some smack, more from Harvard, and a bit from Princeton December 21, 1905, Thursday - The New York Times MACCRACKEN ATTACKS FOOTBALL OLIGARCHY Forces Controlling the Game Denounced at Alumni Dinner. “COMMITTEE ON MISRULE” Chancellor of University Compares Committee Members with the Russian Grand Dukes. Chancellor MacCracken of the New York University at the annual dinner of the Alumni of that institution, given last night in the Hotel Manhattan, said that in certain respects the football question resembled the Russian problem. In Russia it was the people against the Grand Dukes. In America it is the football people against the football Grand Dukes. “The football grand dukes,” declared the Chancellor, “call themselves a ‘Committee on Rules.’ They are really a ‘Committee on Misrule.’ The football grand dukes are high and mighty potentates. The hopeful gentleman in the White House attempted to influence them, but so far as the public has discovered he accomplished less than the Czar has accomplished with the reactionaries. “I accord these Grand Dukes the merit of what is popularly called sand. In face of the almost universal verdict that football has proved on many occasions either a dull or deadly game, they have stood up stoutly against any change. They have flourished their knouts, each in his own province to quell insurrection. “The college corporation gives football over to a special committee on athletic sports, composed of three professors, three undergraduates, and three graduates, appointed I know not how. The President and the Faculty are powerless, unless the corperation officially resumes the control thus given away. There is no sign that they have the desire or the determination to do so. “The Grand Dukes care little or nothing for those outside their own order. They say that no one of their own players had been killed. “‘What have we to do with the deaths that occur in preparatory schools and in small colleges?’ they ask. ‘If their half-grown and half-trained fellows get hurt it is their own fault.’” “I forgive the Grand Dukes, but I do not forgive the universities which deliver themselves over to this narrow committee of seven. I do not forgive the university Faculties who thus abdicate their authority and then plead this abdication as an excuse for inertia. “Every university that officially supports this oligarchy becomes responsible for its past as well as future. It has the choice offered to it - stick to the present Committee of Misrule, or, on the other hand, join the National movement in response to the invitation of the twelve colleges. “Colleges and universities constitute one great republic in this country of ours. The conference of next week will probably bring together the widest representation of this republic of colleges ever assembled. Perhaps a hundred universities and colleges will be represented. “Those that have written they cannot attend have expressed their entire sympathy with the purpose of the conference as announced in the invitation. The Conference of the Twelve Colleges will merge itself gladly in this National assembly on Dec. 28.” Fletcher Thompson spoke on “Automobilitis,” and sought to show how typical of a too great tendency toward haste and luxury is our civilization. “The College Spirit” was the toast to which William H. McElroy responded Mr. McElroy said that the college man was becoming pre-eminent in political life, and that the disclosures that were being made daily and that had been made for months in various directions showed that the college man had still a great task before him. “The Refluent Element in Progress” was responded to by George Thomas Dowling. Dr. William K. Otis spoke to “College Athletics,” Wilton Merle Smith to “Sister Universities,” and Rupert Hughes to “Parotiditis.” ————— NEW RULES FOR HARVARD. Wants Freshmen and Men from Other Colleges Barred in Athletics. The most radical move yet made for incorporation into the eligibility code for intercollegiate contests is suggested for adoption of Harvard University by The Harvard Bulletin, regarded as the official organ of the Harvard Athletic Association. It proposed the barring of all freshmen and graduate students and of all athletes who have ever represented another college from competition at Harvard. Pennsylvania, by advocating the extension of the one year’s residence rule, to include all students, sought to debar freshmen, but Harvard would go further. To adopt one graduate restriction would mean the cutting down of the available athletes at Harvard and Pennsylvania by nearly one half, and would give Yale and Princeton an immense advantage. The barring of students who have played at other universities would, of course, stop solicitation and reduce professionalism, but would also handicap all big teams. Harvard men who have given the matter careful study, while desiring some changes, are hardly disposed to go so far. The exact wording of The Bulletins’s rule is: “Only members of the sophomore, junior, and senior classes of Harvard College and of the Lawrence Scientific School, and special students in either of the above-named departments who have had one year’s residence, shall represent Harvard University in athletic contests. No one who has ever played on an athletic team of any other college or is more than 25 years old shall be eligible for any Harvard team.” ————— PRINCETON’S FOOTBALL VIEWS Opposed to Interference, Professional Coaching, and Wants Fewer Games. PRINCETON, N. J., Dec. 20 - President Woodrow Wilson and the Faculty committee on outdoor sports of Princeton University announced to-day the principal changes in methods of playing and conducting football which Princeton believes to be essential for the proper reformation of the game. They will urge very earnestly on all suitable occasions the following: First - That in playing of the game all interference be abolished. Second - That all coaching by men who are paid in any way, directly or indirectly, or who receive their expenses, or any part of them, be done away with. Third - That the number of intercollegiate contests be materially decreased, and the length of the season for such contests be correspondingly shortened. The first suggestion is for the purpose of abolishing all mass plays and of restoring the original open game. The second suggestion is designed to place the game upon a purely amateur footing and to restore to the players themselves the initiative of which in recent years they have been deprived. The object of the third suggestion is to decrease the amount of time and energy which the players are now obliged to devote to the game. The committee has instructed Princeton’s representatives on the Rules Committee - J. B. Fine - to urge the acceptance of the first suggestion. _____________________________________________________________________________________ MacCracken's remarks are related to the Russian revolution of 1905, which has shared the headlines with football throughout all this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
It'd be interesting to put some of the reformers in time machines and send them into the present. I wonder if they would be appalled, or pleasantly surprised by the state of modern college football? Great articles Deteriorata.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
I like "automobilitis" and the idea that everyone is moving too fast. I really do wonder what someone from the turn of that century would think of where we've gone not just in our sport but in our society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued The odor of rodent is emanating from New Haven, and, unbelievably, Harvard's not ready. December 22, 1905, Friday - The New York Times FOOTBALL RULE CHANGES JEOPARDIZED BY YALE Dead-Lock Threatened at Meeting of Rules Committee. WISH OF MAJORITY OPPOSED New Haven’s Delegate Must Not Block Reform Unless Ready to Assume Responsibility When the Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee meets in Philadelphia to-night to act on the changes suggested to the playing rules, the impression seems to be that there will be no action of any kind taken, unless there is an agreement to the proposal to set aside the unanimous consent provision. The obstacles are Walter Camp and Yale. If the unanimous consent of the seven delegates is necessary to effect changes, as has been the case heretofore, the meeting will end in a dead-lock. Camp, it appears, is opposing changes that meet with the approbation of a majority of the committee, while the latter is determined that there shall be no longer a continuance of the conditions that blocked legislation last year. There will be five colleges at the meeting favorable to changes, but willing to bow to the opinion of the majority. Every one of these five, if they find the majority’s hands tied, will officially declare its position on the questions at issue, lay bare the conditions that prevented action, and leave the onus of the failure to be placed by public opinion. Harvard, Pennsylvania, Cornell, and Annapolis wanted changes last years of the same character as have met with general approval this year, and were compelled to accept their share of the adverse criticism that has been heaped on the committee through the selfish course pursued by other delegates. Yale never suffered by leaving in Camp’s hands the legislation to govern intercollegiate contests. The measures introduced were not to Yale’s disadvantage, however they may have adversely affected others. He has shaped his course to take the same position this year by his announcement that reforms must be made; that his reforms must be adopted, never mind about the others. If no action is taken, he says, it will be in spite of Camp’s herculean efforts, and he will be in nowise to blame. But the purpose of the others to state the facts will block that. Camp last year wanted a ten-yard rule. The others were willing to accept it with other changes that would make a ten-yard rule effective in opening up the play without making the game simply a kicking duel. Camp would not accept the opinion of others; so since a ten-yard rule alone is ridiculous, there was no action taken. There are five colleges this year committed to weakening the end defense, while maintaining the center strong, in order to make line plunging as hard as ever and end running easier. The ten-yard provision with this scheme would be practical and effective. Yale has always been the exponent of line plunging alone, and has never, even in the past season, when there was so much silly talk about her open play, tried end running. Yale naturally regards anything that handicaps line plunging with disfavor, but outside the legislative halls she would like to appear as the confirmed opponent of mass plays by advocating impractical measures pretending to attack it. Harvard, Princeton, Pennsylvania, and Annapolis stand committed to weakening the end defense, only differing in method. Yale opposes it and Cornell and Chicago have not yet declared their position. Pennsylvania, Harvard, and Annapolis favor forward passes behind the line of scrimmage. The others are silent on the score. All favor increasing the distance to be gained in three downs, but, with the exception of Yale, only with corollary changes to make it effective. All favor the more specific definition of holding and other fouls, but no two rules agree as to what should be allowed and what prohibited. All favor stricter penalties for rough and brutal play, but Harvard wants just penalties and not penalties so immoderately severe that no official would inflict them. All favor a central body to appoint and control officials, but differ as to manner of selection. Princeton alone favors elimination of interference (and then only because of Faculty instruction). Cornell alone favors allowing either side to secure the ball on a kick. Chicago alone suggests a different code for school boys, though the others agree it might be a good thing. This, it is believed, is how the various delegates are instructed to vote on provisions, and if no action is taken it will be proper to look to the opponents of these measures to place the responsibility. _____________________________________________________________________________________ December 23, 1905, Saturday - The New York Times RULES MEETING POSTPONED. Harvard Asks for Week’s Delay to Formulate Football Reforms. At the request of Harvard, the Intercollegiate Rules Committee meeting to have been held last evening in Philadelphia was again postponed for a week. The elaborate plans for the reform of the game which are being drawn at Cambridge are still incomplete, and the Crimson desired another week in which to formulate them. The time was extended to Dec. 29, when the committee will met at a place to be determined on. At least these were the reasons assigned for the delay. As a matter of fact, it is not improbable that the prospect of a dead-lock in the committee as a result of Walter Camp’s declaration that reforms other than his own must wait may have had more to do with the postponement than appears. All seven colleges are anxious that action shall be taken, but the others are not willing to enact Camp’s changes and be held up on their own suggestions when the majority agree upon desirable measures. Unless Camp recedes from his position no action could be taken. It is believed at the meeting that the committee proposes to extend an invitation to West Point to be represented in the future. _____________________________________________________________________________________ I'm sure the discussion of adding West Point to the Rules Committee has nothing to do with West Point's current stance on forming a new rules committee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued December 24, 1905, Sunday - The New York Times ATHLETIC REFORMERS PLAN FOR BUSY WEEK Intercollegiate Convention to Include a Hundred Institutions. BIG UNIVERSITIES NOT IN IT Rules Committee’s Differences Said to Have Been Adjusted and Action Assured - Schemes Proposed. With the General Convention of colleges and universities active in athletics throughout the United States to assemble at the Murray Hill Hotel on Thursday, and the Intercollegiate Rules Committee to meet on Friday and Saturday, to say nothing of possible developments in Columbia’s athletic reorganization, the college football world is apt to sit up and notice things this week. Chancellor MacCracken announced that there will be nearly a hundred institutions represented when the convention assembles in answer to the call of the conference of twelve colleges. Information as to the personnel of that representation is denied on University Heights, but it is pretty generally accepted that all of the big colleges and many of the smaller most prominent in football will not be in attendance. From the West will come some ten of the delegates, and the proceedings of the convention will be interesting. The propositions it advances are in general commended, but the methods employed have not met with such widespread approbation. One effect that the Conference of Twelve Colleges has probably had has been to call attention to the exclusion of West Point from the General Rules Committee, with a result that the Military Academy, and possibly another of the smaller colleges may be invited to send a delegate in future years. This year, however, the Rules Committee has all the trouble it can handle with its present representation, and is not seeking any further difficulties by introducing new elements to its disputes. At one time during the past week it looked as though matters might come even to an open break within the committee, but it was said yesterday by those in touch with the deliberations of the various constituent institutions on football reforms, that the difficulties would be adjusted without serious trouble. This can only mean the capitulation of Walter Camp, for the majority of the committee have resolved not to tolerate longer the dictation of the Father of Football without placing blame squarely where it belongs. Camp is not anxious to shoulder the responsibility of a failure to act. Action if taken will mean the weakening of defense on the ends of the line. This is the only possible means to encourage open play without changing the whole character of the game as played at present, and will be generally received with satisfaction. It sounds the death knell of line plunging beyond a doubt, since line plunging can only gain from two to three yards on an average, and it is not possible to carry the ball ten yards in three downs by means of it. With the necessity of seeking end running as a means of retaining the ball, the weakening of the end defense gives the chance for light, swift running, dodging backs to again find place in the game. It is a reversal of the whole trend of legislation in the past ten years, and the first real step toward a return to the old ideals that were found so satisfactory. The corollary changes in methods of conducting the sport and the systems in vogue must come from individual initiative. Shortening of the playing season, fewer games for each team, more general intra-university contests, probably covering a sort of preliminary season preparatory to the inter-university games are among the reforms most favorably regarded. A general lessening of schedules of expenses and lowering of the level of prices to bring the games more within reach of the students, while reducing the revenues derived, are other changes well received. It is not improbable that there may be some concerted action to effect these results and also to alter the eligibility standards to correct other ethical abuses. All of these changes are favored by Columbia and are a part of the plans outlined for her new athletic regime. Were they publicly stated as the ideals which Columbia sought at the beginning of her action, even though it were later deemed wisest to drop football from her lists, there would have been no outcry such as arose from the student body. While the undergraduates are in a measure propitiated by President Butler’s declarations of Friday, they are not entirely comfortable over the outlook as yet. The idea of a series of intra-university games to lead up to three or four intercollegiate contests is a happy one if practical. To make it possible some artificial means must first be found to arouse a sufficiently widespread interest in the recreative side of athletics. Only in such college towns as Princeton, Ithaca, Hanover, Amherst, and Williamstown does the student indulge in sports generally. In season the campus of the colleges located there are overrun by undergraduates throwing about a baseball or kicking a football. In cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago this is impossible. It is necessary to employ compulsion to secure this result at the beginning, though once well started college tradition and sentiment would doubtless continue it. Northwestern University is the only institution to talk compulsion. There the Faculty has approved a student petition to the Trustees asking that definite recreative hours be set aside and the student compelled to seek some form of exercise during them. By this means general participation is assured and inter-class and inter-department contests would be the natural outgrowth. The experience of Columbia ought to afford a pretty convincing object lesson that the meddling with questions of this kind by theoretical reformers without consideration for the feelings of those whose hearts are bound up in the traditions of several generations is the wrong way to approach the subject. Columbia might easily have provoked some serious trouble, which, though now happily averted, places the authorities in the disadvantageous position of proceeding without the undergraduate confidence. If the two lines of reform, the ethical and the theoretical, are kept apart, the whole plan of college athletics may be remodeled without serious disturbance and a revolution accomplished, which is both necessary and inevitable. ————— COLLEGES FAVOR NEW RULES. Pennsylvania’s Suggestions Approved by Most of Leading Institutions. PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 23 - The circular sent out recently by the University of Pennsylvania through its Committee on Athletics with the view of systematizing athletic rules has brought a large number of replies from representative universities, colleges, and schools. In the circular, the important questions were: 1. The possible adoption of a simple and uniform eligibility code, so as to avoid unseemly squabbles between institutions. 2. The elimination of brutal and foul play. 3. The change of “playing rules” so as to minimize danger. The suggestions contained in the replies to the circular have been referred to the rules Committee of the Athletic Association of the University of Pennsylvania. Unreserved approval of the increased penalties proposed for brutality and foul play was expressed in a large majority of the replies and approved with certain modifications in nearly all of the remainder. As a whole, the eligibility code was cordially commended in more than three-fourths of the replies. The replies so far received show a widespread interest in the subject and are regarded as indicative of a desire among universities and colleges to reach an agreement regarding college sport. The desirability of the cultivation of the spirit described by President Roosevelt to Dr. J. William White, Chairman of the Athletic Committee of the University of Pennsylvania, as that which underlies a “gentleman’s agreement” in sport was emphasized in the replies. Answers containing assurances of approval or valuable criticism are arriving in large numbers, and a further report will be made early in the new year. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Walter Camp arranges for a Christmas Day game to demonstrate to everyone, once and for all, that the 10-yard rule is all that is needed to reform the game. December 25, 1905, Monday - The New York Times NEW RULES FOR FOOTBALL. Disqualification for Slugging and Rough Tactics - Game to be Played To-day. WICHITA, Kan., Dec 24 - The coaches and members of the Fairmount and Washburn football teams met here to-day and decided on the final rules under which the game to-morrow afternoon will be played. A player will be disqualified for slugging or employing rough tactics, and for one offense the team will lose the ball. Forward passes will be permitted back of the line. These rules were added at the suggestion of Walter Camp of Yale, who also suggested that ten yards be required to be made in three downs. Dr. Outland, former coach of the University of Pennsylvania team, will be the referee, and William Bates, a former member of the Dartmouth team, will umpire the game. A number of coaches and members of Eastern college teams are expected to-morrow morning. Dr. Outland will make a special report of the game and the new rules to Walter Camp and Coach Reid of Harvard, and a detailed report will be submitted to the Rules Committee at its coming meeting. _____________________________________________________________________________________ December 26, 1905, Tuesday - The New York Times TEN-YARD RULE A FAILURE. Only Seven First Downs Made in Test Game in Kansas. WICHITA, Kan, Dec. 25 - Football played under the rule that makes it necessary for a team to advance the ball ten yards in three downs proved a virtual failure in the Washburn-Fairmount game here to-day. At the end of two twenty-minute halves neither side had been able to score a touch-down or get near enough to their opponent’s goal to score by a place or drop kick. Only seven first downs were made by the two teams, four by Washburn and three by Fairmount. Six weeks ago these two teams played a game, Washburn winning by a score of 11 to 6, making fourteen first downs and Fairmount four first downs. It was an innovation in football, but four attempts being made at line plunges, in every instance the backs going in the line after they had made all but a yard or two of the required distance by end runs. Ten times in each half Fairmount was forced to punt, and the Washburn right half back booted the ball eighteen times during the game. Except through punts neither team was able to get within striking distance of their opponent’s goal, and the game was played almost entirely in the center of the field. Not a man was taken out during the game on account of injuries, but two or three times time was taken out on account of bruises and loss of wind through tackles in the open field. The ten-yard rule does away with roughness in scrimmages, but hard tackles in the open field caused all the bruises to players in the game. Dr. John Outland, formerly of the Pennsylvania team, and selected as an All-American tackle in 1899, refereed the game. Afterward he said: “It seems to me that the distance required in three downs would almost eliminate touchdowns, except through fakes or flukes. Of course the two teams would have to be as nearly matched as Fairmount and Washburn. I believe one team would have to be twenty-four points stronger than the other before they could score a touchdown by straight football.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ Oops. If the name of the referee sounds familiar, that is indeed the John Outland after whom the Outland Trophy is named.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
ha, poor Camp. His entire argument shut down in on Christmas day game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued On the eve of the big conference, Harvard's internal divisions become public. December 27, 1905, Wednesday - The New York Times NO FOOTBALL FOR YEAR, SAYS PRESIDENT ELIOT Harvard’s Head Suggests Action to Correct Ills of Game. COLLEGES IN CONFERENCE Big Institutions Not Represented in Convention Which Begins Here Tomorrow - Camp’s Rule Fails. Will Harvard stop football for a year? There is a possibility of that course being followed by the Cambridge university. President Eliot has declared in favor of it, and signs seem to point to that end. The facts that seem to indicate it are these: President Eliot in a personal letter to Chancellor MacCracken in reply to the invitation of the conference of twelve colleges to attend the general convention which they called for to-morrow morning at Murray Hill declares: “I avail myself of this opportunity to tell you that my own belief is that intercollegiate football should be stopped for one year, so that the individual college may demonstrate in practice, each on its own grounds, a reasonable game of football. “There seems to be a wellnigh universal consent that the present game of football is intolerable, and surely this is a great improvement in the condition of public sentiment. “For myself I find it impossible to believe that the committee, coaches, and umpires that have ruined the game are to be trusted with the reform or replacement. The experts in the ruined game are not the persons I should select to advise about the selection or creation of a substitute. “The fundamental difficulty with the present game is the bad spirit in which it is played. To get rid of this vicious spirit I think we must stop intercollegiate football for a time. “On the whole, therefore, I favor absolutely separate action by the individual colleges, and not conferences or conventions or other attempts to continue intercollegiate football under new regulations.” This is the first official declaration of the spirit of the Harvard authorities toward the game. Heretofore in answer to all inquiries the statement was made that President Eliot would deal with the whole matter in his annual message to the university corporation in February, but that the initiative in any action for or against football did not lie with him, but in the Overseers of the University. Twice resolutions have been presented to the Harvard Overseers looking toward action restraining or abandoning the game at Harvard, but each time the action was postponed with the statement that the proper time to act was not until February when the whole matter would have been given time to have been thoroughly considered from all sides. Meantime all the coaches and athletic authorities at Cambridge have consistently maintained the stand that “if the game were to be continued at Harvard, some radical action must be taken to correct the evils incident to it.” In line with this attitude, a committee of graduates was appointed at the suggestion of head Coach Reid, looking toward the general and complete revision of the playing code and the meetings of the Intercollegiate Rules Committee have been twice postponed to allow this committee to complete its exhaustive review. This is now completed and ready for presentation to the meeting of the Rules committee on Friday, and it is known to be the most radical action yet suggested by any of the colleges which are parties to the Rules Committee. Finally and most significant, Harvard has informed each of the colleges with which she has athletic relations, severally and without exception, that the agreements under which they play are operative from year to year, and terminable on the notice of either party at any reasonable time before the season in which the games are played. And, finally, no arrangements of any kind have been made toward scheduling games for next year, although the usual season for the arrangement of dates is past. This does not mean that Harvard has decided to drop the game, but it does mean that she has prepared the way to do so. Harvard football men do not believe she will go so far, but one of the best-informed of her athletic alumni, a member of the committee having the revision of the rules in hand, recently said that was a possibility. How strong a probability it is remains to be demonstrated. ————— As announced in these columns a week ago, none of the colleges that are represented on the Intercollegiate Rules Committee will be parties to the General Convention of Colleges and Universities Active in Athletics Throughout the United States, to-morrow. These institutions are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Cornell, West Point, and Chicago. They must be regarded as the leaders in football who set the fashion in the game; and any code of rules that might be adopted by other institutions less conspicuous in the sport without consultation with them, must inevitably fail as far as carrying any weight outside of the particular circle by which it is adopted. There has been expressed a general sympathy with the other motives of the convention, and had the rules feature been eliminated doubtless the leaders might well have participated in its deliberation. For instance, Chairman White of Harvard writes: “May I add that this action (Harvard’s declination to attend) does not imply any lack of sympathy with the movement. Harvard is taking up the question and working out at present in its own way, and for this reason it seems inadvisable to be actively involved in other similar undertakings.” ————— The experiment tried at Wichita with the new suggestion regarding the distance to be gained in three downs is enlightening and suggestive. It proves the contention of those colleagues of Walter Camp on the Rules Committee, who held that to increase the distance to be gained to ten yards would simply produce a kicking duel, with no scoring save on flukes and neither team able to hold the ball by consecutive gains. Of course it compelled the abandonment of line plays. It may be said that the teams which tried the rule were not sufficiently expert to test it fairly. On the other hand, it is probable that the end defense of the less expert teams is not so strong as the better teams, and the weakness if it existed favored the new rule. If the end defense had been weakened, end running might have been seen with gains consistent enough to make free scoring and long open plays. The suggestion the test advances is: Why not apply such a test to the rules proposed in the East and make the trial with teams sufficiently well trained to give a true idea of the worth of the change? It would thus be possible to get a fairly accurate notion of how each new rule worked before it was incorporated in the code, and if it failed of the desired effect to so amend it as to make it practical. It would add to the value of Rule Committee deliberations materially and settle disputed points, averting the unfortunate result of last year’s dead-lock when all proposal of changes were abandoned before any of the committee would yield its conviction against the scheme advanced. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued The big conference has finally been held, and a good time was had by all. December 29, 1905, Friday - The New York Times FOOTBALL CONVENTION WANTS ONE RULE CODE Asks Old Committee to Co-operate in Reforming Game. AMALGAMATE OR ACT ALONE Sweeping Action by College Conference At Murray Hill Hotel After Stormy Session After a stormy session that lasted for nearly nine hours, the representatives of sixty-two colleges and universities that gathered at Murray Hill Hotel yesterday to act on the football situation and to secure reforms in the game came to a happy conclusion that promises to accomplish the end desired. For five hours, however, it appeared as though no decision could be reached, so varied and diametrically opposite were the views expressed. After the hardest kind of a battle the practical men in the conference managed to convince the others that recognition of the present Intercollegiate Rules Committee was necessary if any effective reforms were to be made and that the work of revising the code would have to be undertaken with that committee as a party to any action. A committee of seven was therefore appointed to revise the rules and to seek an amalgamation with the present rules committee. The committee will go to Philadelphia this evening, seeking admission to the session of that body scheduled to be held in that city to-night. Failing in the endeavor to secure the amalgamation of the committees, the men appointed yesterday will act independently of the older body, and there will be two sets of football rules, a consummation much to be regretted, and which every effort was made by the practical men in yesterday’s conference to avoid. The committee of seven that was named includes seven delegates and as many alternates, representing the seven sections of the country that were in evidence in the conference. They were as follows: New England - Delegate E. K. Hall, Dartmouth; alternate P. C. Philips, Amherst. New York State - Delegate Charley Daly, West Point; alternate R. C. Huntington, Colgate. Other Middle States - Delegate J. A. Babbitt, Haverford; alternate F. H. Dodge, Rutgers. Ohio State - Delegate C. W. Savage, Oberlin; alternate Fred Stone, Miami. Middle West - Delegate H. L. Williams, Minnesota; alternate H. W. Donovan, New York City Far West - Delegate J. T. Lees, Nebraska; alternate J. B. Ehely, Colorado College. Southwest - Delegate F. H. Curtis, Texas; alternate W. B. Burtt, Kansas. The practical men on the Committee are “Charley” Daly, the old Harvard quarterback, later of West Point, and a notable player; Harry L. Williams, the old Yale half back and hurdler, now coach at Minnesota, and E. K. Hall, the old Dartmouth player. All the others are actively identified with the game at their universities in one or another capacity. Besides this action of the convention the whole broad question of eligibility, amateur status, and other ethical evils of football were gone over and means taken to secure concerted action, looking toward the elimination of abuses that have crept into the game. The convictions of the convention were very pronounced and boldly spoken in no uncertain terms. There were sixty-two delegates in the big parlor of the hotel when the conference was called to order by Chancellor MacCracken. Letters of regret were read from some twenty institutions, including Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Cornell, Chicago, and Michigan, expressing sympathy with the purposes of the convention, but stating their inability to participate in view of other obligations or arrangements covering the subject of the deliberations. The list of delegates included: [snipped, nobody cares.] The first business that was brought forward was the West Point proposition. This at once precipitated a fight, it ostensibly arising over the size of the committee to be chosen to revise the rules, but in reality over the question of recognizing the present Rules Committee, which, according to Prof. Bogert of Columbia, was responsible for all the disrepute into which the game had come. This lasted for four hours, when it finally brought out as champions of the present committee Harry L. Williams, Capt. Pierce, Dr. Phillips of Amherst, Commandant Burtt of Kansas; in fact, every man with practical knowledge of football conditions in the room. There was quite a deal of acrimony injected into the meeting, in the course of which Chancellor MacCracken informed one delegate that he had played football before the delegate was born, over fifty years ago, and bore on his hand a scar from that game. Prof. Philips of George Washington University had stated that he had seen one hundred and fifty football games in five years, and had personally seen innocent boys carried off to the hospital and eventually to the morgue, to which Dr. H. L. Williams replied that he had played or coached daily for twenty years and had never seen a permanent injury. Another retort from Maryland brought out the statement from Dr. Williams that if football was too strenuous a game for Marylanders to play they had better play basketball, but that if they wished the abolition of the game, they had no business to be represented in a body that was seeking to reform a game in which they believed. It was this bitterness more than anything else possibly that finally aligned the two factions and secured the passage of the West Point resolutions, as follows: “Resolved, That a football committee of seven members to be appointed by this conference, and that this committee be directed to act as follows: “First - To communicate with men of Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Cornell, Annapolis, and Chicago University of the committee that has formerly governed football and propose that the committees be amalgamated into one, which shall formulate rules under which football shall be played. “Second - If this amalgamation is refused, then the above-named committee shall proceed to formulate rules under which football shall be played by the institutions ratifying the actions of the conference. “Third - That the seven members elected by this conference shall be guided in their action so as to secure the following: (a) An open game. (b) Elimination of rough and brutal playing. (c) Efficient enforcement of rules; making the rules definite and precise in all respects, such as the definition of brutal playing, holding, tripping, and in general, all infringement of the rules for which penalties are given. (d) Organization of a permanent body of officials. “Resolved. That the actions respecting football taken at this conference shall be submitted to all colleges actively engaged in that game, including those represented, with the request that the same be ratified, and shall be binding upon any institution only upon ratification by that institution.” With the Rules Committee provided for and a committee named to determine its personnel, the question of the control of the sport was taken up. This resolution was passed placing the responsibility for the reform of present conditions directly on the academic authorities: “Whereas, The game of football as practiced at present under existing rules by the students of the educational institutions in the United States has developed undesirable features, the regularly accredited representative of the Faculties of the collegiate institutions from all sections of the country in convention assembled at the Murray Hill Hotel, New York City, on Dec 28, 1905, in an effort to remove these objectionable phases of the sport, hereby “Resolved. That this conference recommends that the academic authorities of the colleges and universities throughout the country hold themselves as ultimately responsible for the conduct of athletics within their respective institutions.” Then the eligibility question was considered, and, after a ringing declaration from several delegates that the evils of the game, less than 20 per cent lay in the rules and were not the concern of the Rules Committee; that the Faculty had to eradicate these evils. Prof. Bogert presented for Columbia these declarations on the score of purification and they were adopted: “Whereas, This conference recognizes that certain serious faults and abuses have developed in the conduct of the game of football throughout the United States which are not in accord with the ethical standard and true spirit of sportsmanship which should govern intercollegiate competitions, and “Whereas, It is the earnest desire of the colleges and universities represented in the conference to remedy these faults and abuses and to place and maintain the game of football on the highest possible plane of ethics and sportsmanship, and “Whereas, It is believed that this result can best be obtained with the active aid and co-operation of the coaches and graduate committees of the various institutions, it is therefore “Resolved, That this conference strongly condemn as unworthy and dishonorable of an American college or university the practices (1) Of offering inducements to players to enter universities because of their athletic ability and of supporting and maintaining a player while a student either by athletic organizations or individual alumni or otherwise directly or indirectly. (2) The singling out of students of preparatory schools who have shown exceptional athletic ability and endeavoring to influence them to enter a particular university either through the offering of inducements or through the process known as rushing. (3) The playing of men ineligible as amateurs. (4) All deliberate attempts to injure members of opposing teams, including kneeing, kicking, striking with clenched fists, or other means of slugging. “And for the purpose of carrying out the spirit as well as the letter of the foregoing resolutions this conference recommends (a) That the colleges and universities assume responsibility for the violations of the letter and spirit of the resolutions by our respective football organizations. (b) That they use every effort to prevent and discourage violations of articles 1 and 2 of the resolutions, whether by students, alumni, or other persons. (c) That they hold coaches and members of football committees responsible for their respective colleges and universities for the conduct of players on the field, and particularly that they hold the head coach to a personal responsibility for any infraction of the rules. Before the engagement of any coach or the appointment of any committeeman shall be sanctions, such coach or committeeman shall be required to pledge himself to observe the letter and spirit of the resolutions, and to remove from the team any player who fails to observe the same.” Finally a permanent organization was effected by electing Capt. Pierce of West Point, president; Dean Wild of Williams, Vice President, and Dr. Bevier of Rutgers College, Secretary. With these three, four other members were selected as an Executive Committee - Dr. Welch of Ohio Wesleyan, Dr. Moore of Vanderbilt, Chancellor McCormick of Western University of Pennsylvania, and Frank Strong of Kenyon College. This committee was instructed to devise eligibility rules for general adoption by the following: “Resolved, The committee on Resolutions recommend that the Executive Committee of the permanent organization take up among other things the vital question of eligibility of students who take part in athletics, games, and sports, and report at as early a time as practicable to themselves on rules and regulations for the general conduct of all such matters.” The meeting then adjourned to meet a year hence in New York or at the earlier call of the chair. ————— OLD COLUMBIA MEN PROTEST. Send Letter to President Butler Regretting His Football Action. Fifty old Columbia men, all members of the New York Stock Exchange, signed a letter that has been sent to President Butler of Columbia University protesting against President Butler’s actions in regard to football and other sports. The signers evidently feel that his action, if pursued further, will result in the death of the School of Arts, or College, as it is now called. No Columbia man outside of the Stock Exchange was asked to sign the letter, and not one Columbia man who was asked refused to sign the protest. The letter sent to President Butler follows: “New York Stock Exchange. “The Hon. Nicholas Murray Butler, LL. D., President Columbia University, New York, N.Y. “Sir: We, the undersigned, alumni and former students of columbia University, having the very best interests of our Alma Mater at heart, note with the deepest regret your action in regard to football and other athletics at the university. “We feel that the resolutions adopted by the Council will do the university the greatest injury and will decidedly tend to keep the best class of young men from enrolling therein. It will also prevent the alumni from attending athletic games with other colleges, on which occasions the enthusiasm for and their interest in our Alma Mater is greatly fostered, and the affection for the university and far-reaching interest in its welfare are always largely increased by these contests. “We therefore urgently request you to reconsider the action taken by the Council, and at least give some the opportunity to the alumni to express to you their views in regard to this subject. “[a bunch of names]” ————— FOOTBALL CRITICISM UNFAIR, SAYS SCHURMAN Cornell President Says Game is Too Valuable to Abolish. EVILS CAN BE REMEDIED In Address to Academic Principals He Calls for Men of Honor Rather Than Wealth Seekers. SYRACUSE, N. Y., Dec 28 - President Jacob Gould Schurman of Cornell University placed himself on record to-night in an address on “National Greatness” before the union meeting of the Associated Academic Principals of the State of New York as a staunch friend of the game of football. In the physical training of the youth, Dr. Schurman declared, outdoor sports take the place in this country of the military service required in Germany. “However strange it may sound to the critics,” he said, “it is nevertheless true that athletics have made it possible to govern, (because athletics have developed an esprit de corps,) hundreds, yes thousands of students in a single university year after year without the help of jury, court, or policeman. If the critics abolished baseball or football we should implore them, in the interest of academic discipline, to devise suitable substitutes or restore these games themselves. “Baseball and football are the best outdoor sports we have for the American youth, and football is the most popular not only among the youth, but among the American people themselves. It is a rough game, but taking account of the large number of people who play it - comparing them, for example, to the more luxurious motorists - the number of serious accidents and of fatalities is small. The game is so stirring, it challenges so potently the play impulse of young Americans, it appeals so strongly to the popular love of vigorous competition, it has init so many elements of military discipline and moral training, it affords such a voluminous vent for huge masses of superfluous feeling and energy in players and spectators alike, which otherwise would seek and find an outlet in more dubious channels - there is, I say, so much to be adduced in favor of the game that the criticism which has of late been hailed upon it will on impartial consideration be found to be, if not hysterical and frenzied, at least one-sided and unfair. “In my own judgment the two greatest objections to football as now played are ‘slugging’ and other intentional evasions of the rules for the purpose of weakening opponents and the commercialism which grows out of gate receipts and the handling by young men of enormous sums of money for athletic purposes. “The first of these evils can be remedied by the enforcement of severe penalties for rough playing, not only disqualifying the offender but penalizing his side. To that end the positions of the umpires must be rendered more independent, so that they will not scruple to do their duty even when the stands are filled with the friends and supporters of the offending team. A few changes in the rules, and in the provisions for their enforcement would accomplish all these reforms except the elimination of commercialism. And that, I suppose, we must endure till the colleges and universities agree to abolish gate receipts. And gate receipts will not be abolished till some less objectionable way is devised of supporting athletics. “But what an improvement it would make if all other reforms were effected at once! And I see no reason why they should not be. Indeed, the Football Rules Committee, which is composed of representatives of Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Pennsylvania, along with a representative of the Western Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and a member at large, have been holding meeting this month for this purpose, and at their very first meeting they passed a resolution in favor of action leading to the opening of the game, at the lessening of brutality, the placing of the appointment of officials in the hands of some centralized body, and the rendering of the evasion of the rules unprofitable.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ So West Point finally has its new Rules Committee. This committee, however, is rather a joke. Only three of the seven have played football (Hall, Daly, and Williams), three are essentially gym teachers (Babbitt, Savage, and Curtis), and one is a Greek professor (Lees). They have little experience with game, let alone writing rules, no plan of reform, no credibility and no following. Harry Williams is the only member with some clout, but because he formerly played for Yale, not because he represents Minnesota. They are charged with going it alone if the old rules committee won't cooperate, but Williams is savvy enough to realize that without them, their own rule changes will be largely ignored. The power to change the game still resides with the old Rules Committee, regardless of what Professor Bogert of Columbia wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued The new committee gets a stiff-arm from the old one, and W. H. Andrews discusses the conference in the second story. December 30, 1905, Sunday - The New York Times NO FOOTBALL REFORM; DELAY BY NEW BODY Desired Amalgamation Not Completed Pending Instruction INFORMAL MEETING IS HELD Attitude of the Old Board Evidently Friendly Toward the New Appointees PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 29 - The Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee, after a prolonged discussion here to-night, decided that its members had no power to amalgamate with the Committee of Seven appointed by the New York University conference without first consulting their respective universities. The old committee will communicate with their appointing institutions and report the result to the new committee as soon as possible. This decision was reached after a conference with the New York conference committee, at which the latter proposed the amalgamation of the two committees into one to be known as the National Rules Committee. Subsequent to making its decision, the old committee invited the members of the new committee to join them in an informal discussion of suggested changes in rules which they accepted. The joint meeting continued until long after midnight. Prior to the meeting with the original committee the new committee met at the University Club for organization and discussion of the plans. Dr. H. L. Williams of Minnesota University was elected Chairman, and Dr. G. A. Babbitt of Haverford College was chosen Secretary. While the committee was in session an invitation was received from the original committee to hold an informal conference at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel. This was accepted, and the members of the committee immediately went to the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel. Those present at the joint conference were: Original Committee - Dr. Paul J Dashiel, Annapolis, Chairman; Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., Harvard; Walter Camp, Yale; Prof. J. B. Fine, Princeton; District Attorney J. C. Bell, Pennsylvania; Prof. L. M. Dennis, Cornell. Conference Committee - Dr. H. L. Williams, Minnesota University, Chairman; Lieut. Charles D. Daly, West Point; Dr. G. A. Babbitt, Haverford College; Prof. C. W. Savage, Oberlin; Prof. John T. Lees, Nebraska University; F. K. Curtis, University of Texas. Dr. A. A. Stagg of Chicago University, member of the original committee, and E. K. Hall of Dartmouth, member of the new committee, were unable to attend. After presenting their credentials the New York Conference Committee summated the following proposition to the original committee: 1 - The two committees be amalgamated into a National Rules Committee, to meet annually. 2 - The individual members of the national Committee present and discuss changes and modifications of existing rules at each annual meeting. 3 - An Executive Committee of five be chosen from the National Committee for the purpose of drawing up definite rules embodying the recommendations of the National Committee. 4 - The five members of the Executive Committee be made up of three from the present Rules Committee and two from the New York Conference Committee. 5 - That the rules determined upon by the Executive Committee be submitted to the individual members of the General Committee for ratification. 6 - Upon ratification by a majority of the General Committee these rules shall become the official rules for the ensuing year. The proposition, it is understood, was favorably received by the members of the old committee, and after a brief discussion the new committee retired and awaited the decision of the original committee. The original committee deliberated for some time, and shortly before 11 o’clock informed the new committee of its position, but agreed to delay action on the rules until its right to amalgamate be established. The invitation to an informal conference followed. The original committee later gave out the following statement: “After inquiry this committee finds that its members have no power without first consulting their respective universities to amalgamate with the committee appointed by the New York conference, but as all of us are interested in the amendment of the rules looking to the betterment of the game we invited them to meet with us informally this evening for a general discussion of such amendments. The members of this committee will obtain definite instructions from their several institutions as to amalgamation and communicate the result at an early date.” It was the intention of the original football Rules Committee to take up the suggestions made by its members at a meeting held here three weeks ago, but the program was disarranged by the action yesterday of the New York conference. There was much interest manifested as to what suggestions Harvard had to offer in the way of reform rules, because of the conference Coach Reid had with President Roosevelt. Harvard is the only institution represented on the old committee that has not yet presented its ideas for eliminating the objectionable features of the game. Whether Coach Reid was prepared to present his suggestions is not known. Paul Dashiel said to-night that the members of the old committee, owing to the attacks made on the committee, had received specific instructions from their respective institutions, and that whatever new rules were formulated were to be followed by the institutions represented on the committee. He said the committee did not assume to legislate for all the institutions in the country. Institutions not represented on the committee, he said, did not have to follow the rules the old committee made. ————— THE NEW RULES COMMITTEE. Conference Auxiliary Meets Here Before Going to Philadelphia. Before leaving for Philadelphia yesterday afternoon the conference rules committee held a meeting in this city. There were six members of the committee in attendance, the alternate serving for New England, and no one attending from New York, it being impossible to get into touch with either delegate or alternate during the day. These six men discussed the whole ground and decided on the general object which they sought to obtain, but they could not go into the question of actual phraseology in the time at their disposal. The conclusions arrived at may be generally stated thus: The absolute definition so that there be no possibility of misconstruction of every foul which is now penalized in the rules. The limitation of the use of hands in the line to such an extent that hacking is impossible without detection. The differentiation between rough and brutal play, the severe punishment of the former and the disqualification of the offenders in the latter, the restriction of tackling below the knees, and the proscription of hurdling, the appointment of a central board of officials appointed for a long enough term to make them free from any fear of offense in enforcing the rules most strictly, perhaps the increase in the number of officials. The achievement of open play by means that shall not change the present character of the game too decidedly. No radical restrictions as to the placing of the me such as placing them far apart laterally on the field of play. No weakening of the offense, but, if practical, weakening of the defense, which shall make line plunging as difficult and end running easier. Whether this be done by withdrawing the men on the ends of the line five or ten yards, or by other means, is not determined. Avoiding of the undue encouragement of kicking. No change to the ten-yard distance to be gained unless corollary changes are made that shall not render consistent gains impossible. The disposition seems, however, to be to increase the distance, but allow four downs. The committee members who conferred were: Delegates Dr. Joseph A. Babbitt of Haverford College, Dr. Harry L. Williams of the University of Minnesota, Director C. W. Savage of Oberlin College, Prof. John T. Lees of the University of Nebraska, F. Homer Curtis of the University of Texas, and Alternate Dr. Paul C. Philips of Amherst College. Neither Delegate Charles Daly of West Point nor Alternate R. C. Huntington of Colgate University attended for the New York colleges. It is certain that the introduction of this new committee of the smaller colleges into the rules situation will not produce chaos, even though in the end it fails to secure the absolute co-operation of the old committee. A glance at the composition of that committee will show that the preponderance of power rests with the West, while in the East there are two practical players who are not in sympathy with any radical changes, and another Faculty member who is in complete accord with the game. In the West there is a marked feeling that any wide departure from the present rules is unnecessary. This feeling was strongly displayed in the conference of colleges at the Murray Hill, where from all parts of the country, save alone the Middle States, there came decided evidences that there was no quarrel with football itself, but with the abuses that have crept in from the ethical standpoint. This sentiment was, perhaps, best illustrated by Chancellor W. H. Andrews of Allegheny College. His view as to the work that properly belonged to the football conference were eminently sensible and showed a conception of the true conditions that most of the theorists lacked. In discussing this phase of the situation he said: “The most important work done by the football conference was on the question of reforming the eligibility code and correcting the evils of importation, professionalism and commercialism in sport. Too little attention has been given by the Faculty to the conduct of the game, and I believe we should take that end of the game directly under our supervision, while leaving the technical end to those experts who are capable of dealing with it. We certainly are not. “I heartily approve the resolutions adopted. They are what we most want. Three-fourths of what we are here for is to do something about the question of eligibility and the management of the game. Our great responsibility as educators in this football matter is not with rules. They ought to be changed. Everybody admits that. They will be changed, too, and by experts. The problem we face is a far more serious one than the rules. It affects the whole spirit of the game. If we settle the question of eligibility, and style it right, and do the same for the management of the game we shall have gone a long way toward the end we desire. “I come from Western Pennsylvania. There the problem I have described is a very serious one. The Faculties of our colleges sustain delightful relations to each other, but we have made no attempt to come together for the purpose of making pure our athletics. It is common among us for men to enter college in the Spring, and two days after registering, to be on the ‘Varsity baseball team. We go out after men for the sake of baseball and football, offering all sorts of inducements. It isn’t a thing unknown among us for a man to go from the football team of one college to the football team of another in mid-season. Scholarships are offered to promising players. Professionalism is winked at. We have no eligibility rules of any kind. “I know of one man among us who has just finished his seventh year of college or university football, and I understand he expects to keep on for two or three years more. “Such things has I have describe ought not to be possible anywhere. Our duty is clear. We must banish commercialism and professionalism from athletics. We must abolish the ‘to win’ spirit and replace it with the ‘manly game’ spirit. I believe in athletics, vigorous athletics, too, but we must have clean athletics. Better no athletics than that our colleges be smirched with trickery, foul play, brutal practices, and the mercenary spirit. “Faculties and governing bodies can no longer shirk responsibility. The public eye is on us. Public sentiment is outraged at things which have happened. We dare not do less than make open declaration in the name of the colleges that we represent that the evils of football must go. “Football, with the ethical evils eliminated, ought to be and can be a help in realizing our college ideals and not a hindrance. It is for us to see and hold to the good in the game, and to put away all that does not conduce to manhood and high educational standards.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ The amalgamation offer from the new committee is quite generous, giving the old committee three out of five seats on the Executive Committee that would make all the decisions as to which rules to incorporate, along with the chairman from the old group. The new committee clearly knew its place. The old committee, however, has no real interest in merging and diluting their power. They also do not want to lend any legitimacy to the new group. Hence the supposed need for "consultations", which is just a stalling tactic. Yale, particularly, remains convinced that tempers will cool, enthusiasm will wane, and all this reform nonsense will fade away if they can just ignore it long enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Jacob Gould Schurman of Cornell reflects on the meeting of the 28th, as well. December 31, 1905, Monday - The New York Times WANT COLLEGE LEAGUE FOR ENTIRE COUNTRY To Extend Murray Hill Conference to All Institutions. CONTROL ETHICS OF SPORTS Elaborate Plan to Remedy Existing Evils in the Conduct of University Athletics. The importance of the conference of colleges and universities at the Murray Hill Hotel to secure the remedy of the evils that have crept into football was rather lost sight of in the technical questions of rule revision that arose. The conference came to be viewed by outsiders as theoretical reformers, who without knowledge of the technical game, and impressed by what President Schurman of Cornell described as “hysterical excitement” against it, were prepared to eliminate a sport which is one of the best features of college athletic life, or, failing that, to so alter the rules as to absolutely deprive it of all the virility and strength that commend it to the undergraduate body. When once the conference body found itself, it quickly demonstrated that the preponderance of sentiment was greatly at variance with this impression; that the feeling ascribed to the gathering was confined to a very few. Even these few were speedily shown the ridiculous exaggeration of the true conditions that they had been led to believe in by the absurd statement of one of their number that he personally had seen in five years’ time scores of boys committed to the care of educators carried from the field of play injured, to hospitals, and finally to the morgue. This at once appeared to align the friends of the game, and it was discovered that fully 80 per cent of the sixty-two colleges wished to continue the game, and continue it along much the same technical lines as it was now played, and that with the actual rules of play they had no more than a general concern. When this was once clearly brought out, the convention immediately delegated the rule revision to those competent to handle it, being assured of their purpose to improve the game on generally approved lines, and it then proceeded to take up its real work - correcting the ethical evils. It is in this that the convention had its real importance. The evils complained of in football are principally those of spirit, and have to do with the rule code in no sense. Commercialism in sport, professionalism, the spirit of “win at any cost,” instead of “manly sport,” that has come to actuate many in the game, the evils of solicitation and importation and a hundred others of like kind were undermining the whole structure of college athletics. It was this that demanded faculty supervision and faculty action to eliminate. The technical evils, even those which dealt with danger and brutality, were absolutely unimportant compared with them and might safely have been left to the Grand Dukes of Football. The action of the convention in effecting a permanent organization assures the creation of a body of men to generally supervise athletics that is most desirable. To make this body National in scope and bring into it all the universities and colleges in the land is the next step. The promoters of this conference do not intend that the work started so auspiciously shall fail of accomplishment in these two essentials. The question of method is the next in importance. Obviously, unless there is to be some big question to arouse general interest as the football question has, the institutions in California and the Far West are not going to send delegates to the East to a convention in any great numbers. As in the East is the main body of colleges, the place of meeting must always remain here. To overcome the difficulty of geographical distribution it is suggested that the country be divided up into sections, and that the sections be represented by a half dozen delegates in a general convention. For this purpose it is proposed to organize in the Far West on each side of the Rockies an intercollegiate association comprised of faculty representatives. In the Southwest, embracing the ground from Texas to Nebraska, the same is to be done, while the Middle West and Northwest such an organization as now exists among what is called the conference colleges, will be extended to embrace all those institutions that are not now among the nine here enrolled. In Ohio and in the South, in Pennsylvania, New York and New England the same plan is contemplated. By means of these district organizations the whole field can be comprehensively covered and general questions of eligibility, that prohibit professionalism, solicitation, importation, and kindred ills kept carefully in hand. The most difficult problem to handle in this connection is the question of commercialism. So long as it is necessary to maintain athletics at considerable cost and as long as the colleges themselves cannot afford to supply money for the purpose from their limited endowments that are not now sufficient for their educational needs it will be necessary to employ gate receipts in some form if intercollegiate athletics are to continue on their present extended scale. All that can be done as yet is to limit as far as possible the expenditures of the teams and perhaps to restrict the number of contests to further reduce the cost. To abandon intercollegiate athletics was almost unanimously condemned, but the advisability of curtailing their number in order to reduce the volume of expenditures was strongly advocated. This would enable the reduction of gate charges to the minimum and allow the goal of money handled to be considerably diminished. If this would remove the business atmosphere, the advertising spirit that has actuated many of those in charge of the games, well and good. If not, other means must be devised. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Once this gathering of administrators figured out that the primary problems were administrative, they got very fired up about the whole process and started administrating. They came out of the meeting like bloodhounds on a scent. These guys are not going to go away, and Yale has rather badly miscalculated her position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued A short one today. Harvard would like everyone to know they're still here, and running out of patience. January 5, 1906, Friday - The New York Times RADICAL FOOTBALL CHANGES Harvard Will Act Alone If Rules Committee Does Not Satisfy Her. CAMBRIDGE, Mass, Jan. 4 - Unless the National Football Rules Committee takes some radical step in modifying the gridiron game, Harvard is going it alone. This statement was made to-night by Prof. H. S. White the Chairman of the Harvard Athletic Committee, with which body now rests the fate of the game at Harvard. “We are opposed to football as it was played last Fall,” said Prof. White. “Of course, I cannot speak officially, but I think that I am voicing the sentiment of the whole committee when I say that. Our committee will probably take some radical action within the next two weeks which show where Harvard stands with regard to the game, so far as the committee in charge of athletics at the university goes. We are responsible parties, so to speak, because we are appointed by official bodies, the corporation, the Overseers, the Faculty, the graduates, and the undergraduates. “We are not experts on football, but we have the advice of experts on football, and therefore know what we think should be done for the game. If the action of the other institutions is not radical enough, according to our thinking, we will be forced to go it alone no matter what happens. I do not think that this will be necessary, however, for I know by private conferences that other universities feel as we do about the game. “The report that the Harvard Athletic Committee or any members of it will resign if any football is abolished at Harvard is without foundation. “The special committee of graduates to formulate rules is not official, and they can do no more than suggest. We are very glad to receive their suggestions or the suggestions of any one else who has something really worth while to suggest or propose. We also are glad of the co-operation of any other university in the matter.” _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued The new Rules Committee also loses patience, and Harvard goes after Yale two different ways. January 6, 1906, Saturday - The New York Times FOOTBALL MEETING TO-DAY Conference Rules Committee to Convene in This City PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 5 - Dr. James A Babbitt of Haverford College, Secretary of the Rules Committee of the National Intercollegiate Football Conference, has sent out notices for a special meeting of the committee to be held at the Murray Hill Hotel, New York, at 2:30 o’clock to-morrow afternoon. The committee will consider important matters which have arisen. The Rules Committee, through the Secretary, to-night sent the head authorities of Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Annapolis Academy, and Chicago University a detailed statement of the proposition for the amalgamation of the new Rules Committee with the original Football Rules Committee. The latter body is made up of one representative from each of the above-named institutions. The proposition to amalgamate with the old committee was made in this city a week ago, at which time the old committee promised to give the new committee an early answer. ————— HARVARD PLANS REFORM OF FOOTBALL RULES Radical Changes Demanded or Crimson Will Act Alone. WARNING TO THE COMMITTEE Low Tackling, Hurdling, and Piling Up of Players Are Some Objections of Cambridge Authorities The announcement of Prof. White of Harvard that unless some radical changes are made in the football playing rules that university positively will refuse to accept them and will undertake her own reforms, if she has to act alone, cast a modest bomb in the camp of the football enthusiasts, who were congratulating themselves on the satisfactory solution of their difficulties after a season of troublous times. Following the announcement of President Eliot that he personally favored abandoning intercollegiate football for a year, until each college could develop a game that would satisfactorily remedy the evils complained of, a peculiarly sinister aspect is given to the announcement. A prominent member of the special rules committee of the university, who is in touch with the entire situation, who knows what action is contemplated by the authorities in case of certain eventualities developing, requiring their interference, says: “Harvard will not act independently of the other colleges, and will not proscribe football, even for a year, if satisfactory measures are taken by the Rules Committee to reform the game. I have personally tried to impress on the members of the Intercollegiate Committee the importance of making effective reforms, and not accepting such silly twaddle as a ten yards rule as a panacea. The ineffective nature of such a change is well understood by experts who know the game. It is introduced as a sop to reforms, with the full appreciation that it is inefficient even in the minds of the promoters. What these men really want is ten yards to gain in four downs, which will make no change at all in the present game. They want this so that they can place the odium of refusing to change the game on other shoulders than their own. “Let this be a warning to them. If any such plans are adopted, if means are not taken to so define holding and other offenses as to prevent them; if means are not taken to so prohibit piling on men; if means are not taken to prevent low tackling and hurdling and otherwise prevent injuries and roughness and brutality as far as possible, Harvard will prohibit the game for a year and perhaps permanently, unless enough colleges subscribed to her views, which will then be published, as to admit of her playing it with those institutions. But she will not continue with the others, even if they be members of the Rules Committee, if they permit any ineffectual changes.” —— Dr. Edward H. Nichols, the surgeon who attended the Harvard football players during the entire season last year, has written an interesting article in The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal on the “Physical Aspects of Football.” In it he makes some astonishing statements with reference to the frequency and nature of the injuries sustained. He states that they are not only more frequent but more serious than suspected, and gives in detail the record of the past season. The most surprising fact he sates is with respect to brain concussions. “Such cases,” he says, “are frequent, both during practice and in games. In fact, but two games were played during the season in which a case of concussion did not occur. The injury was frequently noticed by the surgeon before it was recognized by the players. A player might automatically run through a considerable series of plays before his fellows noticed that he was mentally irresponsible. “Partial and complete dislocations of the outer end of the collarbone were very numerous, and were received in a variety of ways, some while tackling in the open, but the greater number caused by having one shoulder caught in the pile of men falling. In but two cases was the dislocation complete, and in one of these the player received it early in the half and played through without knowing his collarbone and scapula were entirely separated. “One of the most frequent injuries was twisted knee and dislocated semilunar cartilages. They were received almost always in the pile, and were due to a blow on the outer side of the knee when the lower leg was fixed. Two men played through the season with such dislocations, but their efficiency was much impaired.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ The point of the doctor's report was to attack Yale's assertion that line-plunging plays are mostly harmless, and impress on everyone that they're not making idle threats. Harvard really will drop the game if significant reforms aren't enacted, and may drop it regardless. Reid also has assurances from many institutions that if Harvard drops the game, they will, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
From the Department of The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same...Deteriorata posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:From the Department of The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same... One of the things that has struck me throughout this is the number of issues we're dealing with today have been a part of football right from beginning. They've never been solved, just contained for the time being and have to be revisited at periodic intervals. The current hysteria over players' unions is a part of this same set of issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Another informal joint meeting, finally, and Yale shows her hand. January 7, 1906, Sunday - The New York Times FOOTBALL COMMITTEE IN ALL-DAY SESSION Newly Appointed Reformers Plan to Meet Old Body. OPPOSE RADICAL CHANGES Practically In Accord with Older Board on All Questions for the Good of the Game. The Rules Committee appointed by the National Intercollegiate Football Conference to meet the old Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee and, either with it or independently, reform the playing rules for the game, met in this city yesterday afternoon, at the Murray Hill Hotel, to discuss the situation and formulate plans for its procedure in the two eventualities that confront it. It was in session for five hours in the afternoon, and after adjournment of an hour continued in session until long after midnight. The technical consideration of the rules was undertaken; views were exchanged as to the ends to be desired in reforming the code and as to the best means to obtain those ends; but no policy on the technical game was formulated. Methods of procedure were discussed in case amalgamation was effected with the old committee, and also in case the proposed amalgamation failed and it was compelled to act alone. They adjourned at midnight, to meet again at the Murray Hill next Friday evening at 7 o’clock. The old Rules Committee has been called to meet together in this city at the University club at the same hour. It is expected that the members of that committee will then be empowered by the institutions which they represent to accept or reject the proposed amalgamation. It was for this purpose that they adjourned their former meeting for two weeks to secure authorization and instruction to act in the premises. Shortly after that hour the two committees will undoubtedly exchange notes announcing the decision. Until that time it will not be known whether or not amalgamation is possible and whether the two shall continue in independent session or act jointly. As Dr. Harry L. Williams, Chairman of the Conference Committee, said last evening: “We meet here to-day to formulate our plans of procedure. We have made a definite proposal to the old Rules Committee that the two bodies amalgamate. Obviously we can take no action whatever on the question until we receive that answer. All we have done since that meeting was to send a letter to the President of each of those seven institutions, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Cornell, Chicago, and Annapolis, notifying them of our action and proposals. We are awaiting replies either from the official heads of the universities addressed or from the committee to which we made our proposal. “Meantime, we cannot allow time to go by without preparing for the future. If we are to act independently of the old committee, we must study the rules, and formulate our ideas as to the changes, what is best, and how best to obtain it. We must learn in a few weeks’ time what the other committee has been inculcating in itself for years. We must study the conditions with which it is thoroughly familiar. This is no less true if we are to meet and act with it. In fact, it is more true, since we have to act sooner in that case. We cannot delay it unnecessarily by our ignorance of conditions, by uncertainty as to what we want. To make this study, or rather to exchange opinions on what we have learned by our constant study since we have been appointed, is the main reasons for our meeting. We had, too, to decide how we should move in case of the acceptance of our proposal, and also in event of its refusal. “We did not formulate any suggestions for rule changes or express any opinion on suggested changes that have been brought to our attention. We had certain prescribed objects to attain: Open play, eliminating roughness and brutal play, and eliminating the dangers of the game as far as possible. We have ideas of course as to how to do these things. “From the joint conference with the other committees in which the fourteen men present exchanged their views at length, I should say that we were generally in complete accord with the old committee as to the desirable ways of changing the game. We certainly are as to the purposes we wish to forward. We agree on the general questions of having a central appointive board for permanent officials. We agree on the question of more severe penalties and other means to define and then to eliminate brutality and restrict roughness. We agree on the desirability of certain restrictions that have been announced looking toward the reduction of the liability to injury. We are agreed as to the desirability of the open game. The old committee is not itself a unit in the proper method to be employed to attain this. We are not out of accord with it as a whole, and no more at variance with any individual idea of any single member than those members are among themselves. “That in general is our position as far as we are able to define it. Further than that we are none of us prepared to go. As to the impression that prevails in some quarters that we are radicals and extremists: We are not in favor of any radical changes that will greatly alter the character of the present game. On the contrary, we are in favor of the minimum change that will be effectual in attaining the object we are after. We none of us feel that it is necessary to technically alter the character of the present game greatly.” There were present at the meeting besides Chairman Harry L. Williams, representing the University of Minnesota, Lieut. Charles D. Daly of West Point, Prof. James A Babbitt of Haverford Secretary of the Committee; F. Homer Curtis of the University of Texas; C. W. Savage of Oberlin College, and E. K. Hall of Dartmouth College. Prof. James T. Lees of the University of Nebraska is in the West and could not attend. No substitute was there in his stead. When the committee had been in session about an hour it was visited by Lieut. Col. R. L. Howze of West Point. Col. Howze said he was the bearer of a confidential communication to the committee, the nature and source of which he was not in a position to state. The committee refused to discuss the reason for his presence or his message. Some on the outside were inclined to think that he bore some such message as Capt. Pierce brought to the General Conference of Colleges, when he said he had had unofficial assurance that the proposal to amalgamate would be favorably regarded by the old Rules Committee. Another rumor said he was acting as an intermediary between Harvard and the present committee with whose objects the Crimson is supposed to be in especial sympathy. Both theories were generally scouted, however. The impression given by the committeemen themselves was that they were completely in the dark as to how their proposals would be received by the different colleges. All the members will leave this city early this morning, not returning unless by special call, until next Friday morning. ———— CHANGES TO FOOTBALL PROMISE A DEAD-LOCK Decision Reached Not to Abolish Unanimous Consent. ONE-MAN RULE TO CONTINUE Unless a Compromise Plan Can Be Devised No Changes Are Likely - Harvard’s Position It was learned yesterday from an authoritative source that it is practically settled that there will be no change in the rule in force in the Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee providing that all alterations in the code must be accepted by unanimous consent. This practically is a declaration that the delegates have determined to stand or fall by the projects that they advance and that unless some new middle compromise measure can be devised there will be practically no change in the rule code, so far as open play goes. The consequences of such a conclusion are so full of possibilities that they cannot be even vaguely estimated by the legislators. The trouble is again Yale’s making. It is a statement that Walter Camp is determined not to abandon the one-man veto rule, which in operation in the past meant one-man domination, with Walter Camp in the position of dictator. It is a well-known fact that football men at Yale, in spite of Camp’s professions to the contrary, do not want to see any changes in the rules that will alter the present style of game, and Harvard’s practical threat to abandon the game if there be no changes has not scared Yale. It may be accepted that the Intercollegiate Rules Committee will never consent to the adoption of Yale’s suggested ten yards’ rule with no corollary change to make it practical. Camp understood this when he introduced the suggestion. It may also be accepted that Camp intends to stand to his guns on the proposition to weaken the end defense to make the ten yards’ rule practical. Pennsylvania, Annapolis, and Princeton are definitely committed to the project of weakening the defense. Harvard, although her position has not been publicly stated, is known to be favorable to it. Cornell is understood to look on it as an acceptable measure if the others advocate it, and Chicago is not disposed to stand out against it. Yale alone faces the others with the declaration that she will not only oppose it, but will positively not consent to it. The plan, therefore, is dead under the unanimous consent regulation. There can be only two other changes made in connection with the ten-yard rule to prevent it making a farce of the game. One is to allow four downs in which to make ten yards, which means practically no change in the present conditions. The other is to permit the forward pass behind the line of scrimmage as suggested, which is an experimental proposition that may or may not admit of extensive development. Some think the forward pass will introduce little change, others believe it will make such radical changes as to alter the whole character of the game. Yale is apparently one of those who hold the former view. She is essentially a “no change” advocate. The question of Harvard’s action becomes of paramount importance in view of the developments. Prof. White has declared if radical action was not taken Harvard should, in his opinion, act alone and adopt rules of her own according to the ideas she advocates, and as many colleges as wished to could follow her. If none did she should retire from football for a year, according to President Eliot’s views, and experiment until she develops a game that would be acceptable to her. _____________________________________________________________________________________ So it is finally out in the open. All the serious talk from Walter Camp about the need for reforms for the last few months has been a bunch of smarmy platitudes. Yale has admitted once and for all that they’ve been blowing smoke up everybody’s butts from the start. They never had any intention of changing anything about the game and have been playing everyone else for saps. There will be no rule changes, no amalgamation, no majority rule, no dilution of Yale’s power, nothing. Yale will remain the sole determinant of what goes into the rule book, and Harvard can take her reforms and her demands and her threats and anything else down to the beach and pound sand. Meanwhile, Bill Reid is stuck between Yale and his Board of Overseers. He knows that Harvard is not bluffing, and without major reforms the game will indeed be abolished. He also has assurances from many other schools that if Harvard drops football, they will too. The fate of football is hanging in the balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Three days later, Harvard finally releases her rules reform plan, and all hell is starting to break loose out West. January 10, 1906, Wednesday - The New York Times NEW FOOTBALL RULES PROPOSED BY HARVARD Advocates Forward Pass and Ten-Yard Rule to Open Play. RESTRICTS MASS FORMATIONS Creates Neutral Zone by Prohibiting Contact of Line Men - More Officials - Severe Penalties BOSTON, Jan. 9 - Harvard’s special football rules committee has announced the changes that it wishes to be made in the playing code, and requested the Athletic Committee of the university to ratify them. This move is made to secure the official seal of the authorities on the changes to avert if possible the threatened withdrawal of Harvard for even the period of one year from the game. The rules suggested are not as radical as it was hoped they would be, and do not represent the opinion of some of the members of the Harvard committee. They recommend: To open up the play - the ten-yard rule and the forward pass between the twenty-five-yard lines; to eliminate roughness - the separation of the two rush lines by the length of the ball; and to limit mass plays - restrict the number of men behind the line to four, if within five yards of the line and between the two ends; to encourage kicking- the widening of the distance between the goal posts to twenty-five feet. Other changes are proposed to eliminate brutality, such as increased penalties, more officials, and so on. The noteworthy changes in the playing rules are: The ball to be placed with the points toward the goals and no players to stand ahead of the points, increasing the distance to be gained in three downs from five to ten yards, permitting the ball to be passed in any direction when the play is between the 25-yard lines, provided the player has not advanced beyond the line of scrimmage, no punt out for a try at goal, increasing the distance between the goal posts to 25 feet, no interference with a free kick, a fair catch to be indicated by the holding up of hand, no movement by players until the ball is put in play, except by one man, and finally that not more than three men besides the man receiving the ball shall be less than five yards behind the line unless outside the position occupied by the outside man in the line. Of these Coach Reid says: “The formation of a neutral zone between the two teams, as wide as the ball is long, will tend to keep the teams far enough apart to enable the officials to distinctly see every motion in a line, and the fact that the minute a player puts any part of his body into this neutral zone he may be penalized, will do away with much of the rough contact now possible in the line of scrimmages. Every football man will realize that the permitting of the forward pass is a radical departure and will open up possibilities that are difficult for any one to forecast until they have been tried in actual play. It will have a tendency to prevent men in the line from crouching, as it will be necessary for a player to get quickly to any spot to which the ball may have been passed. In the clause opening the offense the coaches and Captains are given free hand to develop any kind of a fast-running attack, the only limit being to guard against mass plays by requiring additional players to be at least five yards back and by increasing the distance to gain from five to ten yards. Abolishing the punt-out will place a premium on touch-downs made near the center of the goal line and a premium on skill in kicking goals at difficult angles. Widening the distance between the goal posts will increase the tendency to try for goals from the field and make goal kicking at difficult angles a little easier.” For the conduct of the game the committee recommends (1) that there shall be a second umpire to watch the conduct of the players; (2) That the head linesmen shall watch off-side plays, and penalize them and illegal formations; (3) That any player shall be instantly disqualified for brutality, roughness, and insulting talk, and no substitute permitted for five minutes; (4) That a player twice disqualified shall not play for one year. They also recommend that “the players of the side that has possession of the ball shall not hold, block, or otherwise obstruct the opponents except with the body; but the player running with the ball may ward off an opponent with the hand,” and “that the penalty for holding or unlawfully obstruction by the side in possession of the ball shall be the loss of the ball.” It is recommended that the Rules Committee shall be requested to appoint a committee of three men not members of the Rules Committee or of the coaching staff of any college, that this committee of three shall have full charge of selecting and instructing a corps of football officials. ————— How Princeton Will Vote on Football. PRINCETON, N. J., Jan. 9 - Princeton’s representative on the Football Rules Committee, Prof. J. B. Fine, was instructed to-day as to how he should vote in Friday’s meeting when the question of amalgamation with the new committee is to be brought up. Prof. Fine was instructed by the Faculty Committee on Outdoor Sports, composed of Prof. W. B. Scott, Chairman; Prof. McClenahan and Dean H. B. Fine. When asked to-night what was the result of to-day’s meeting, Prof. Scott said that he did not feel in a position to make a statement in advance, as he though it would be discourteous to the Rules Committee, and was a matter for it to make public on Friday. ————— ’99 CLASS WANTS FOOTBALL. Columbia Alumni Pass Resolutions Favoring the Game. The action of the Columbia authorities in prohibiting football was the subject of discussion at the annual reunion of the class of ’99 at Browne’s chop house, and resulted in the adoption of a memorial to be presented to the Board of Trustees, recommending the continuance of all present forms of student activities. The resolutions were signed by all the members of the class in attendance, and were passed by unanimous vote. They are as follows: “Whereas, The class of ’99, Columbia, having at heart the welfare of the university, has learned with deep regret and apprehension of the recent radical action on the part of the university authorities, affecting student life, therefore, “Be It Resolved, That, in the opinion of the class of ’99, all student activities, including football, existing at Columbia at the opening of the college term of 1905 are, if rightly conducted, proper fields for student effort in an American university, and should be continued. “Be It Further Resolved, That the conditions of such student activities at the present time at Columbia do not warrant such drastic action as has already been taken, and as we understand, is now contemplated by the university authorities. “Be It Further Resolved, That in the opinion of the class of ’99, the special committees appointed by the President now investigating the question of student and intercollegiate athletics should be empowered to consider and advise on the best methods of continuing all forms of student athletics, including the game of football.” ————— Asks for Suspension of Football. MADISON, Wis. Jan. 9 - The University of Wisconsin will propose to the Chicago conference of nine universities on Friday the suspension of intercollegiate football for two years. Prof. F. J. Turner, Wisconsin’s representative, was so instructed by the Faculty to-day. A resolution was adopted proposing a public condemnation of the evils associated with the game, and a protest against the undue emphasis upon competitive athletics as compared with the fundamental purpose of a university. _____________________________________________________________________________________ The Western Conference action was the result of two scandalous articles in Collier’s Weekly magazine, Nov. 11 & 18, 1905, by a recent graduate of Wisconsin which revealed an enormous web of corruption and influence-peddling throughout the university and even state politics, fueled by football money. It accused Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, and Chicago of similar recruitment and payment of ineligible players. The result was massive embarrassment, anger, and overreaction in most of the Conference, but Wisconsin particularly. The Northwestern action, mentioned in earlier articles, was the first result of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Huh, Harvard's rule changes sound an awful lot like they're moving toward the game we know today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued January 11, 1906, Thursday - The New York Times HARVARD ON NEW COMMITTEE. Resigns from National Football Body to Join Conference Seven. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan. 10 - Harvard withdrew from the old National Football Rules Committee to-night by the unanimous vote of the Harvard Athletic Committee, and at the same time resolved to send a representative to the new National Intercollegiate Football Committee that has been struggling for amalgamation with the old committee of seven. The Athletic Committee announced that Harvard would play football next year if the rules were sufficiently modified. The following is its statement: “It is resolved that the unanimous opinion of the Harvard Athletic Committee is in favor of the continuance of intercollegiate football at Harvard provided the present rules and regulations under which the game is now played and which they now regard as unsatisfactory, be changed in such a was as to be made acceptable to that committee. “Resolved, That the National Football Rules Committee be informed that Harvard intends to send a representative to the National Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee and that it withdraws from the old committee with the hope that the other universities there represented do likewise.” No statement was made relative to the report of the graduates’ special committee issued last night suggesting numerous changes in the rules. “As far as I can see the amendments to the football rules that have just been offered by the special committee of Harvard graduates are hopeless, and their suggestions entirely inadequate. I cannot see that they would make a feasible game if put into practice.” This is what President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard said on the latest and most exhaustive attempt on the part of his own university to reform the game. The President of Harvard left no doubt as to where he stood on the situation at Cambridge, for it is a certain thing that if he does not believe in the rules offered by “Bill” Reid’s committee he will do all in his power to prevent their being sanctioned as Harvard’s stand for the game. It is doubtful, however, if any modification of the game short of its abolition would please President Eliot. The final body to determine the fate of the great gridiron game here is the Overseers, of which President Eliot is the head. The board to-day discussed the reform question at length, and at the conclusion of the meeting the only statement made was that the matter had been considered. Ex-Gov. John D. Long presided. Among those who came here especially for the meeting were Overseer Samuel Hill of Seattle, Wash. and Overseer Huidkoper of Philadelphia. While Harvard football is not out of the woods the undergraduates were prone to accept a different view of the case this morning when the result of the efforts of the Graduate Football Committee was made known. It had been feared that this committee, which, though it had no power to do anything final, would advocate such radical changes in the game that it would be impossible for Harvard to find a common game in which she might meet Yale and Pennsylvania on the gridiron next year. But the undergraduate body saw nothing in the proposed revisions that were set forth this morning that would bring about this state of affairs. “Keep football at Harvard and give these rules a trial,” is the cry at Cambridge. The rule requiring the length of the football between the two lines is the least favored, as it is though that this distance is too unimportant to bring about any appreciable result. ————— Yale Favors Football Consolidation. NEW HAVEN, Jan. 10 - At a meeting of several Captains and managers of Yale teams, held here to-day, action was taken declaring that Yale is in favor of consolidation of the old and new Football Rules Committees. Notice of this action will be sent to the other colleges and universities. _____________________________________________________________________________________ And just like that, the impasse is broken. Harvard gets a platform to promote her new rules, a chance to shepherd them to fruition, and guaranteed adoption by enough schools to overwhelm Yale's intransigence. The new Rules Committee suddenly has relevance, clout, and a plan for reform far superior to anything they could have come up with on their own. Upon hearing the news, Yale quickly realizes that they have been out-flanked, and their position is no longer tenable. They meekly concede.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
I keep meaning to say, you should totally compile all of this in a blog/wiki or something for posterity. It's really interesting following the time-line of events as it happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
A blog during next autumn, releasing everything on the same dateline, seems to me to be a k-rad thing that would go over beautifully.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:I keep meaning to say, you should totally compile all of this in a blog/wiki or something for posterity. It's really interesting following the time-line of events as it happened. Trin Tragula posted:A blog during next autumn, releasing everything on the same dateline, seems to me to be a k-rad thing that would go over beautifully. Yeah, I should compile these into a single resource on the net somewhere. I got into it just for the story, but I've realized it would be a valuable resource to have. Thanks for the suggestions! Meanwhile the story continues... The 1905 Crisis, Continued Let's get back to that "amalgamation" thing. January 12, 1906, Friday - The New York Times FOOTBALL REVISIONISTS WILL MEET TO-NIGHT New Conference Body Likely to Swallow Old Board. RULE CHANGES POSTPONED Action Will Be Delayed by Question of Coalition - Harvard Code Well Regarded. Football rules committees will meet this evening to face the problem of the rule revision again. The old intercollegiate committee will meet at the University Club and the conference committee at the Murray Hill Hotel. Both meetings were called for 7 o’clock. In Chicago the nine colleges composing the ”conference” will meet to face, among other things, a proposition from Wisconsin to suspend the game for two years. It is not believed that the proposal will be sanctioned, and, if it should be, it does not follow necessarily that all of the colleges will adopt it. The interesting question that will be decided in this city will be whether or not the old and new committees shall amalgamate. The position taken by Harvard that she will resign from the old and join the new committee rather forces the hand of the old committee. With Harvard out and Yale declared in favor of a coalition there is little doubt that the old committee will meet the new and form a new governing body. Probably the time will be largely spent in planning the basis on which the two bodies shall in future meet - the question of whether or not they shall have an executive committee to recommend rules or operate as a committee of the whole. With these questions of method the college world is really little concerned. As to the rules that will be adopted finally, it seems likely the code suggested by Harvard will be generally favored with one or two changes. There can be no question now of unanimous consent, and there is chance for the weakening of the defense as desired by five of the seven members of the old committee. The new committee has expressed itself as being favorable to the views held by the majority of the old committee. The introduction of the new men into the deliberations must mean the further delay of final action, for they individually have not considered detailed changes sufficiently to be prepared to act. The Harvard code has received the highest commendation from all sources, except from President Eliot. The opinion among football men seems to be that it represented the most efficient revision ever completed; that it provided every necessary change to effect the object desired, and was practical and sensibly conservative. The first announcement of the changes incorrectly stated that the ten-yard rule, which has been the bone of contention in the Intercollegiate Committee, had been recommended with no other corollary change. This would have meant the abandonment of Harvard’s position against that change without some effective weakening of the defense. The recommendation was that the change be adopted only provided some other change be introduced either to weaken the defense or greatly strengthen the offense. While Harvard wanted specific provision for weakening the defense, the committee decided to cut that out and accomplish its end by compromise on the score of greatly strengthening the offense if possible. It is no breach of confidence to say that the Intercollegiate Rules Committee had practically concluded to adopt the ten-yard rule, and that it looked as though, in view of Yale’s opposition and refusal to revoke the provision that unanimous consent was necessary to adopt changes, the weakening of the defense would have been abandoned and some scheme adopted to improve the attack. The only scheme that appeared likely was to permit the forward pass anywhere and not restrict it simply to plays behind the line of scrimmage. This promised to be the compromise reached. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
January 13, 1906, Saturday - The New York Times FOOTBALL COALITION IS FINALLY SECURED Two Committees Unite to Enact Uniform Code. PROF. DENNIS THE NEW HEAD Harvard Representative First Joins Conference and Is Elected Its Secretary - No Executive Board. The amalgamation of the old and new football Rules Committees was effected early this morning at the Hotel Netherland. The members of both bodies came to New York to their respective meetings last evening primed for this action. There were much discussion and uncertainty over the method of bringing about the result. The suggestion of a new Conference Committee for a Joint Committee of Fourteen was generally approved, but the further proposal for an Executive Committee of Five, which would receive the real power of action, was generally vetoed. A counter suggestion of nine members on an Executive Board was better received, since it did not compel the elimination of some essential member of the old body. The conclusion was finally reached by them to effect the junction of the two bodies and eliminate the line of demarkation between them, leaving the question of the constitution of any working body within the Committee of Fourteen to be later determined when coalition was actually effected. The ultimate decision was to act as a Committee of the Whole. When the two committees formally voted to join, they agreed that the new Chairman would be selected from the old Rules Committee and the Secretary should be chosen from the Conference Committee On ballot Prof. L. M. Dennis of Cornell was elected as Chairman and Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford College as Secretary. Dr. Babbitt then immediately resigned in favor of Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., of Harvard, and the members of the old Conference Committee proceeded to elect Dr. Reid. This was not accomplished until midnight, when they jointly proceeded to consider the question of how many should be necessary to constitute a quorum, with the probability of nine members being considered sufficient to act, and that to pass legislation two-thirds of the members present should effect any change. The whip hand was that of the new Conference Committee. Even the members of the old committee admitted that, but Dr. James A. Babbitt acting Chairman of the new Committee, was advised not to use his power unless forced to do so, and declared this to be the wiser plan. The new body received the advantage by the defection of Harvard from the old committee. Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., representing Harvard, telegraphed on Thursday each individual member of the old committee, announcing Harvard’s intention to withdraw. He also telegraphed Dr. Babbitt that he had been instructed to represent Harvard in the new committee. In following this purpose he appeared at the Murray Hill Hotel and sent his card to the committee in conference there, but he remained in the corridor of the hotel until after the invitation of the old committee to meet with it had been received by the new. The question of admitting Reid to membership in the new committee was then acted on by the delegates. It was decided that it was the sense of the conference that appointed them that they should amalgamate with the seven members of the old Rules Committee in any way that they saw fit, and that a partial amalgamation was within their prerogative. They therefore amalgamated with Dr. Reid individually, leaving the question of amalgamation with the rest of the old committee for later consideration. Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford College was the first on the scene. He arrived with F. Homer Curtis of the University of Texas, about 7 o’clock. Prof. C. W. Savage of Oberlin College was the next arrival, and then Lieut. Charles D. Daly of West Point. Finally F. K. Hall of Dartmouth arrived, but Prof. James T. Lees of the University of Nebraska and Dr. Harry L. Williams of the University of Minnesota, were not present. Dr. Williams had notified Prof. Babbitt of his intention to be absent, and Dr. Babbitt became the committee head. Negotiations between the two committees were started by Dr. Babbitt. He telephoned to Walter Camp at the Hotel Netherland and asked where a communication might be sent the old committee. A letter was then dispatched to that hotel containing a new proposal of amalgamation, and the new committee was promptly invited to meet the old at the Netherland. The old committee went into session there at 8 o’clock. Walter Camp was the first to appear. Half an hour later Dr. Paul J. Dashiel of Annapolis arrived, and then John C. Bell of the University of Pennsylvania and finally Prof. L. M. Dennis of Cornell and Prof. J. B. Fine of Princeton. Dr. Alonzo A. Stagg of the university of Chicago, and, of course, Dr. Reid of Harvard were not expected. When the Conference Committee appeared on the scene, Dr. Reid with them, the members went at once to the committee room, remained closeted for fifteen minutes, then withdrawing, each to consider the propositions exchanged. Messengers were sent from one to the other committee rooms with inquiries from time to time. John C. Bell representing the old committee in such exchanges of views, and Prof. Savage the new. At midnight an agreement was finally reached, and the new committee joined the old and the election of officials followed. ————— Bill to Bar Football RICHMOND, Va., Jan. 11 - Delegate R. S. Powell to-day introduced in the Virginia Assembly a bill to prohibit the game of football in Virginia. A penalty of from $50 to $100 is prescribed for each offense. _____________________________________________________________________________________ A couple of things to note here. One, the original offer of an Executive Committee dominated by the old rules committee was withdrawn. They will receive no further deference. The new Conference Committee now had the upper hand and they weren’t about to give it away. Second, the odd process by which Bill Reid was elected Secretary was pre-planned. The job of the Chairman was to run the meetings, primarily, while the Secretary was responsible for writing the resolutions to be voted on. Thus, the position of Secretary held the real power. It was the position Walter Camp had occupied in the old committee for many years. Babbitt was put forth as the candidate initially as he was noncontroversial. Once elected, he immediately resigned and named Reid as his successor. Since the agreement was that the Secretary would come from the new committee, and Reid had joined the new committee just hours before, he was an eligible candidate. Reid had contacted several of the old committee members the day before to secure their support for his gambit, and was elected to the spot before Camp knew what hit him. Thus the result was that Reid was now in position to ensure that Harvard’s reform plan would be the basis for any new rules the committee promulgated, and Walter Camp was relegated to the peanut gallery where he could do minimal damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued January 14, 1906, Sunday - The New York Times TEST FOOTBALL RULES BY ACTUAL FIELD PLAY New Committee to Arrange for Trial of Proposed Changes. SMOOTH SAILING AHEAD Sub-Committee to Make Specific Suggestions to Next Meeting, Jan. 27 - Camp Deposed As Secretary A long step was taken toward the settlement of the uncertainties that have beset the changing of football rules to meet the vernal demands for reforms at the joint meeting of the two committees appointed to effect changes in the code before it adjourned at 3 o’clock yesterday morning. Besides the merging of the two bodies into one, consisting of fourteen members and eliminating politics by doing away with any Executive Committee in which the real powers of the committee would be vested, an organization was effected that will simplify the work to be done and facilitate it immensely. Another meeting of the merged committee will be held two weeks hence in this city at a place to be appointed, when reports from a number of sub-committees will be received. Meantime these sub-committees will set to work to sift the various suggestions made for the accomplishment of the various purposes sought and to recommend the adoption of such as commend themselves especially. An informal discussion of rules changes within the two bodies enabled them to ascertain pretty nearly what was desirable, so that alteration of the rules might be speedily accomplished. The joint committee is to be known as the American Football Rules Committee, and Prof. L. M. Dennis is its Chairman and Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., is Secretary. The sub-committees named are four. One is appointed to consider suggestions looking toward the elimination and punishment of brutal and unnecessarily rough play. This consisted of John C. Bell of Pennsylvania, Chairman; F. Homer Curtis of the University of Texas, and Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford College. One is named to consider ways and means to secure the appointment of a Central Board of Officials, and Prof. L. M. Dennis of Cornell, Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., of Harvard, and Dr. James A. Babbitt of Haverford College constitute it. Another is appointed to consider the proposals looking toward the opening up of the game, consisting of Dr. William T. Reid, Jr., of Harvard, E. K . Hall of Dartmouth, and Walter Camp of Yale. A fourth is appointed to establish what is termed a Field Laboratory, which is devised to test in actual play such as are tentatively decided upon, in order to establish their practicability before they are actually and finally adopted. It will then become the province of Walter Camp of Yale to edit and publish the rules in an official publication, as he has done each year heretofore for the old committee. The creation of a field laboratory is an elaboration of the idea adopted in Wichita, Kan.; to test the suggested ten-yard rule. It will be in charge of Lieut. Charles D. Daly of West Point, Prof. J. B. Fine of Princeton, and Prof. C. W. Savage of Oberlin College. Its work will be most important, and, next to the elimination of politics, it is the most important step taken by the new committee. The political considerations take precedence because they were the one barrier to successful revision of the rules in the old Rules Committee. The whole trouble lay in the unanimous consent necessary to effect changes, behind which provision any one man could take refuge and defy the committee and compel the acceptance of his views. It was this rule that gave Walter Camp the dictatorship of football, and in the recent negotiations he refused to consent to abrogate it. In his determined opposition to any changes to open up the play, except the ten-yard rule, he checked the entire purpose of the committee and a dead-lock threatened. By reason of the formation of a new committee, it is no longer possible for any one man or even a set of men to block changes, since it is provided by the present committee that the consent of any eight men shall secure the adoption of any change, which is simply a clear majority voice. It was also determined that eight men should constitute a quorum, and that any delegate could be represented at any meeting, in event of his inability to attend, by a substitute or alternate. Moreover, Walter Camp was specifically called to account for the impression spread that he was, in the old committee the only member that had advocated rule changes last year and that he was thwarted by the other members. Dr. Dashiel stated that this was a grave injustice to the other members under which the committee did not propose to rest. It was further explained that radical changes were advocated at that time by Harvard, Annapolis, and Cornell and opposed by Princeton and Yale. Camp suggested but did not advocate the ten-yard rule and Pennsylvania declared in favor of no change on the ground that its team had demonstrated the possibility of open play under the existing rules. John C. Bell, however, said he would agree to any change desired by the majority and Stagg for Chicago was non-committal. As a result of this feeling of resentment a disposition was shown to ignore Camp absolutely and his deposal as secretary was due to this feeling. The sentiment of the committee on the desirable changes of the rules is indicated by an expression of opinion on the complete and specific recommendations of Harvard. It was said that with the clearing of two points, the Harvard code would have been unanimously adopted in its entirety. The two points were the forward pass and the weakening of the defense. Regarding the forward pass the Harvard code is ambiguous, it not being made clear by the statement that forward passes should be permitted behind the line of scrimmage, whether the ball could not be passed beyond that line or whether the player passing it must simply be behind the line. The first interpretation is favored, the second opposed. Regarding the weakening of the defense, six members of the old committee stand unqualifiedly in favor of weakening the defense on some such line as John C. Bell suggests, weakening the ends while strengthening the center, while Camp alone stands opposed. The suggestion of a “neutral zone” was favored as certainly unobjectionable and probably very effectual in eliminating rough play. Harvard was criticized somewhat for her attitude toward rule changes, but there was no disposition to blame Reid for the conditions. It was felt that there should be power vested in her representative to approve the rules made or an expression from her official body as to what she desired. As matters stand, Reid may act for Harvard and his action be overruled by the Faculty Committee. The latter authorities refused to either ratify or consider the suggestion of the Harvard Special Rules Committee, simply laying it on the table without even reading it. What this may signify no Harvard man could predict. The air of mystery adopted by the Crimson authorities is the only disquieting factor in this situation. ————— CONTROL ALL SPORTS UNDER ONE GOVERNMENT Strong Plea for a Supreme Court of Amateur Athletics. METHODS NOW CONDEMNED Dr. Gulick in His Address Before the People’s Institute Dwelt on New Spirit in Sport. The establishment of a Supreme Court of Amateur Sport suggested by THE NEW YORK TIMES some time ago is gaining supporters throughout the country. The stand taken by President Theodore Roosevelt on football and his well-known advocacy of absolute purity in all branches of athletic sports has thoroughly demonstrated the need of such an organization. With the Nation’s Chief Executive an officer in the Public Schools Athletic League, and a member of the New York Athletic Club, the first place on this National Board of Review would naturally fall to him. It is said that President Roosevelt would be certain to accept the position, which fact would guarantee its success. One of the most enthusiastic advocates of a Court of Amateur Sport is Dr. Luther Halsey Gulick, Secretary of the Public Schools’ Athletic League and President of the American Physical Education Society. Dr. Gulick at the meeting of the People’s Institute made a strong plea for a National athletic governing body, in which he said: “Athletic sports need to be responsible to somebody. There must be some organization covering the athletics of the entire country, corresponding to the Public Schools’ Athletic League of this city, which is a medium of cooperation and the maintenance of high ethical standards among 600,000 children in this city. This general athletic body must decide all disputed questions; questions of eligibility, of records, and protests. It must be select and pay officials for all large games, so that they shall be thoroughly impartial. It must have its own committee and salaried secretary. That is, it must be a National expert body. It must regulate sport between institutions and not within the institutions. Each college or club must be free to do what it pleases, when carrying on athletics within the confines of its own memberships; but when competing with other institutions the general standards of clean and gentlemanly athletics must be complied with or the organization must be put outside of those that aim to support the ethical standards. “When a loyal alumnus discovers a young man that gives promise of rare power it is the most natural thing for this man to try and get the boy to his college. If he has money he will likely help the boy through college, and thus helps the boy, the college, and the athletic or football team that he loves so well. In this way of looking at it, there is nothing but good in connection with it. But when we trace the history of this kind of thing we see that in the long run as soon as skill in sport begins to have a financial advantage to the player it readily develops a type of sport and a degree of excellence before which the average man has no opportunity. This condition has been reached in intercollegiate sport in New York to-day. The average man has no chance. “If a man can earn his living playing football, there will be attracted to football men of unusual special gifts in that direction. These men will devote time and knowledge to the game such as usually given to business, and it will be but a few years before it becomes restricted to the comparatively few experts who make it their first business. This is unqualifiedly an evil. It is traceable directly to the practice of making it financially worth while for a boy to become a winner in any branch of athletics. It makes athletes professionals, removes them from the plans of recreation, and places them beyond the reach of the average man. “There is another evil also in connection with paid athletics. It is this: A man who is paid for his athletic ability must put up a winning game, or in the course of a little time he will be dropped. That is, it is not merely necessary that he play well, it is necessary that he must put up a winning game, he must win. It is not the question of sport: it is a question of winning. This is the fundamental difference between the professional and the amateur. This is why the Amateur Athletic Union is making year after year such tremendous efforts to separate amateur from professional sports. It is perfectly honorable for men to play for money, but it is not honorable for them to play for money and then swear they don’t. They claim that they belong to the ranks of the amateur, when in reality they are professionals. Thus the loyal alumnus as well as the tolerant college opinion are risking great harm. “The new spirit is coming with athletics. It is the spirit of honesty, which is compelled by public opinion. The great majority of those who have been in the sport have been honest, but now many more are being compelled to be honest by the force of public opinion. “The time is coming when teams representing institutions will meet and part in friendship; when a competing team will be entertained as a guests, not as foes of the host; when a man will be as keen for the athletic honor of his institution as he is of his own honor. Public opinion heeds to express itself until it is embodied in such a natural institution for the regulation of inter-institutional sport as is already dimly in sight.” Dr. Gulick has struck the keynote of the ultimate success of amateur athletic sports - a National governing body to act as a supreme court of amateur sports. He recognizes the remarkable amount of influence such an organization could wield for the betterment of all branches of athletic sports, and set a standard for clean, gentlemanly competition that would place it above the possibility of cavil or criticism. Such a body would define the true amateur, formulate eligibility rules, straighten out tangled and contradictory conditions, and, in brief, act as a National board of review and control. _____________________________________________________________________________________ January 15, 1906, Monday - The New York Times Abolish Intercollegiate Football COLUMBIA, S. C. - Jan. 14 - The Trustees of the South Carolina College yesterday decided to abolish intercollegiate football. It was stated that the action was taken without outside influence, it being deemed for the best interests of the institution. _____________________________________________________________________________________ A note on the first article: The most important sub-committee formed was the one on Open Play. Bill Reid was naturally appointed to it, and he wanted Walter Camp on it so he could keep an eye on him. Ed Hall of Dartmouth was the third member. He was a dedicated reformer and had a law degree from Harvard, and was thus could be relied on to ensure all subcommittee votes went 2-1 in Reid's favor, further isolating Camp and minimizing his influence. All the bitching about Camp in the first article is pretty amusing, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
The new committee to Camp, "hey, gently caress you dad!" So the second article is advocating for an NCAA-like organization and against scholarships. Interesting
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the Rules Committee, January 16, 1906, Tuesday - The New York Times FOOTBALL IS PROHIBITED BY HARVARD OVERSEERS Game Is Stopped Until Acceptable Reforms Are Made. CRIMSON MEN ARE DISMAYED No Hint as to What Changes Will Satisfy the Authorities - Ban May Be Permanent. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan 15 - The Board of Overseers of Harvard University dropped a bombshell in the Harvard football camp to-day by announcing that at its meeting on Jan. 10 last it had voted to temporarily abandon football. The action was simply astounding to every Harvard man in Cambridge, and has everyone agitated beyond measure. The time selected to make the move is astonishing as any other feature of it, coming as it did after the Harvard Special Rules Committee had announced its recommendations for the rule changes; after the University Athletic Committee had declared in favor of continuing the game; after the Harvard representative, William T. Reid, Jr., had withdrawn from the Intercollegiate Rules Committee, following the instruction of the Faculty, and was preparing to go to New York to offer himself as a member of the new Conference Committee. That Reid was allowed to go to the rules meetings on Friday evening in view of the position assumed is simply incomprehensible to the Crimson’s supporters, and that the announcement should come at this point is most amazing. The Overseers announced that they had decided to abandon the game until acceptable reforms have been effected in the playing rules. How long this will be is undetermined. No hint is given as to what would be acceptable to the Overseers; no suggestion as to whether the changes recommended by the special Harvard committee were satisfactory or not. Nothing is indicated as to whether the ban will be lifted when the resent newly constituted rule committee acts. Everything is left in absolute obscurity, save the fact that intercollegiate football at Harvard is gone, perhaps never to be restored. The board acted on the report of its Committee on Physical Training, Athletic Sports, and Sanitary Conditions. This report scored the game without conscience, and incidentally paid its respects to the old Intercollegiate Rules Committee by declaring that no member of that committee, in its opinion, should have a hand in making changes in the sport. The report was adopted in toto, with the additional resolution that the game be abolished until satisfactorily reformed. The effect of the action is so far reaching if it is not revoked before the next football season as to be simply inestimable. Harvard can play neither Yale, Pennsylvania, nor any other of the colleges that she has annually met for a generation. It means the overturning of all intercollegiate relations, and will affect every university in the East to some extent. It is not believed that it will cause any other institution to follow the lead, but it will certainly tend to bring about more radical reforms than are now planned, for fear that some such result will follow. How it will be received by the Western conference of nine colleges that is about to meet on Friday to act upon the proposal of Wisconsin, that the nine take the same step, no one can say. To Yale it means the loss of the biggest game of the year. Whether the New Haven authorities will decide to take on another university in the Crimson’s stead is an interesting question. In view of the tendency to to curtail intercollegiate activities rather than extend them most college men are inclined to believe they will not. Its effect on Pennsylvania, which is deprived of practically its only big game of the year, will be most serious. What the Quakers can do to fill the vacancy cannot be imagined, unless Yale or Princeton will consent to play. Of the smaller colleges the same is in a measure true. An idea of the unexpectedness of the Harvard action can be gained by the fact that William T. Reid, Jr., the Harvard football mentor, knew absolutely nothing of it. He left New York for Cambridge yesterday morning and talked about the general football situation before he went away, with especial reference to the Harvard situation and his own peculiar position as the Crimson’s representative. He declared that he was hopeful of a very satisfactory revision of the game being completed by the new Rules Committee, and was inclined to believe that its action would be favorably viewed at Cambridge. He made very plain, however, the fact that Harvard had not declared for or against the game to him, when instructing him to represent her in the Rules Committee, and that the university Athletic Committee reserved to itself the right to pass upon and reject the rules adopted by the new committee. He said of the conditions: “When agitation against football first began to be prominent I called attention to the evils that appeared to me to be undermining the whole structure of athletics. The main difficulty appeared to me to arise from the coaching of teams to take unfair advantage by a little foul-play, so that success by fair means was difficult, if not impossible. This was partially the fault of the rules, partially the fault of the leniency of the officials. It was the little bit of holding, the little bit of offside play, the little bit of starting before the ball was in play, the little bit of ‘roughing,’ that gave one side an immense advantage over the other side coached to observe the rules strictly. The failure of officials to be, as they thought, too severe, increased the profit to foul play thus derived, until the conditions became almost unbearable. I felt if we could eradicate these difficulties the rest of the evils we suffered from on the field might be readily eradicated. I therefore asked the Graduate Athletic Association to appoint a body of competent men who could exhaustively analyze the rules and see just how we could effect the needed changes. “The Graduate Athletic Association responded by appointing the committee which undertook the rule revision at Cambridge. The committee had no official standing at Harvard and could not in any sense dictate Harvard’s policy. It was connected with Harvard only in the sense that it was composed of Harvard men and connected with the game only in the sense that the men were old players. It was not expected that we would define Harvard’s position, though the recommendations of the committee would influence if not control me in my action on the Rules Committee. When the committee completed its work we submitted the result to the University Athletic Committee to show the temper of these representative Harvard men. “I expected to submit these rules to the old Intercollegiate Rules Committee before the new Conference Committee was appointed. After notice of the action of the Conference Committee was received at Harvard I was instructed by the University Athletic Committee to withdraw from the old Rules Committee and offer myself unconditionally to the new Conference committee in any capacity it chose to accept me. It met and decided it could amalgamate with the old committee in the whole or in part, and it took me in as a part. The coalition of the two bodies resolved all difficulties very nicely. “Now, when we meet I shall certainly offer the Harvard code of rules to the committee and recommend their adoption, but I cannot say that these rules are acceptable to the University Athletic Committee. That committee refused to act on these rules, for the reason that it said it could not place Harvard in the position of threatening the committee by saying practically, ‘You shall accept these rules or we will withdraw from the game.’ “That is the condition at Harvard to-day. If the code the Rules Committee adopts is not satisfactory, Harvard will drop football for a time at least. The University Athletic Committee will be the body to take that action. But even that will not be final. It must then be ratified by both the Corporation and the Board of Overseers. “Of course I am hopeful that no such action will be deemed necessary. I hope the rules were adopt will appeal to the Athletic Committee and the authorities behind them, and that Harvard will continue in the game, but I am perfectly sincere when I say I have not an idea as to the sentiment of either one of the three bodies, and am as much in the air as the rest of the football world. Only there is no good of my worrying. All I can do is wait and find out.” ————— SMALL CHANCE FOR FOOTBALL President Eliot Views the Gridiron Game Generally With Disfavor. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan. 15 - If President Eliot of Harvard has his way his university will not play intercollegiate football next year under any circumstances. This much the head of Harvard stated in an interview in Cambridge to-night. Dr. Eliot said: “I shall never consent to intercollegiate football being resumed at Harvard until it has been demonstrated in actual play that the objectionable features of the game have been ruled out. A mere paper reform of the game will not secure my sanction of the resumption of intercollegiate football at Harvard.” “Do you refer to a demonstration of the new rules in a football experimental laboratory such as is contemplated by the new rules committee?” was asked Dr. Eliot. “No,” was the emphatic answer. “I mean of demonstration of them in actual play. Let the game under the new rules be played by teams made up entirely of our own students, as for instance by two class teams. Then if we find that the reform is actual and not a mere paper reform, we will invite other colleges to play with us. This, you understand, I express as my own opinion and not as that of either the governing bodies at Harvard. Furthermore, I do not believe that the men who have got us into this difficulty are the people to get us out.” “You refer to the old National Rules Committee?” was asked. “I do.” “But the new Rules Committee is not exclusively composed of members of the old committee,” was rejoined. “Not exclusively,” was President Eliot’s reply, “but there are too many of the old committee on the new.” “Would the governing boards at Harvard consider the adoption of the reforms as proposed by the Harvard graduate committee radical enough to warrant the resumption of intercollegiate football at Harvard?,” was asked Dr. Eliot. “That I cannot say. Those boards have not considered such a proposition as those reforms have not been adopted.” “Is your personal opinion that intercollegiate football will be played at Harvard next year?” was the last question put to Dr. Eliot. “I have no opinion on that subject as yet.” ————— Football Abolished at Union College SCHENECTADY, N. Y., Jan 15 - The students of Union College this morning almost unanimously adopted the resolution of the Athletic Advisory Board to abolish football as now played. This action was taken after calm deliberation, and was evidently precipitated by the death of Half Back Harold D. Moore in New York last November. The Faculty is well pleased with the action. Not unless great changes are made in the rules will football be tried again on the “hill.” The students are confident that the athletic associations of the colleges will make the changes and that football will not be eliminated altogether. _____________________________________________________________________________________ This is fundamentally the result of Charles Eliot mistrusting any committee that Yale is a part of. Rather than waiting to see if the new rules are adequate, they're preemptively banning it so that the joint Rules Committee has a gun to its head to pass meaningful reforms and win them back. Kind of a dick move, but understandable, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued In which Dean Hulbert of Chicago assures us football is safe in the West, Princeton assures us that reform will continue despite Harvard, and President Hadley Yale assures us that they are completely clueless about the whole reform situation. January 18, 1906, Thursday - The New York Times TOO GOOD A GAME TO LOSE, Says Dean Hulbert of Chicago University of Football. CHICAGO, Jan. 17 - Members of the Faculty of the University of Chicago believe the wave of football abolition will not strike the conference colleges of the West. Dr. J. E. Raycroft, acting head of the Department of Physical Culture, and Dean Eric B. Hulbert, head of the Divinity School and a member of the Athletic Board, hold that none of the Middle West institutions will do away with the game. “I know that we would not think of abolishing the game at Chicago,” said Dean Hulbert last night. “It is by far too good a game to lose. There are too many level-headed men in the West to necessitate doing away with the sport. Reforms are needed, it is true, and it is expressly for this reason that the football conference will be held here on Friday. All talk of abolishing the game at any Western college in the ‘Big Nine’ is pure nonsense.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ January 20, 1906, Saturday - The New York Times ’TIGERS’ WILL STAND BY GUNS Ready to Assume Responsibility of Reforming Football PRINCETON, N. J., Jan. 19 - Princeton’s first expression in regard to Harvard’s action in abolishing football came out to-day in The Daily Princetonian, the undergraduate paper. After stating that Harvard has thus thrown the responsibility of reforming the big college game upon the other colleges and universities in the new Rules Committee, the editorial says: “There is no doubt that the representatives of these institutions can do the work unassisted by Harvard and do it very practically and profitably, and there is no reason why any additional member should withdraw from the task ahead. “The present game of football with the proposed changes incorporated presents splendid opportunities for a manly and beneficial sport. It is the part of those colleges which stand for this in athletics to remain by the work of football revision. This seems more rational, competent, and frank course than to abolish the game entire because it contains some objectionable features. “There is a trust imposed on this and other institutions represented in the Rules Committee to secure by proper changes a football game which is the full value the game intrinsically possesses. It is to be hoped that these colleges and universities will stand firmly by this trust instead of following the line of least resistance made possible by all the recent popular clamor and exaggerated outcry against the game. This course is abolition.” ————— PRESIDENT HADLEY DEFENDS FOOTBALL But Tells Yale Men Athletic Expenses Must Be Cut. TOO MUCH TALK THE TROUBLE Game Must Be Made Over, Says Walter Camp, Who Tells Alumni How He Would Do It. College athletics in general and football in particular furnished the principal theme for speakers at the Yale alumni dinner, held last night in the main banquet hall at Sherry’s. More than 500 guests were in attendance. There were many women in the gallery, and the Yale Glee Club helped keep things lively. Julian W. Curtiss was toastmaster, and the speakers included President Hadley, the Rev. Dr. W. W. Battershall of Albany, Amos P. Wilder of Wisconsin, Norris G. Osborne, and Walter Camp. President Hadley devoted the better part of his address to football. Indeed, the toast master had no little to say on the subject before he introduced the President. A letter was read from Secretary Taft of the War Department, expressing his regret that he would be unable to be present. The letter contained a reference to the desirability of a change in football rules. President Hadley said, when he got to the subject of athletics: “Among all major sports football has for college students the double advantage of being the democratic and the least dangerous. [Cheers.] Played by rich and poor alike, it claims fewer victims than the sport whose successful pursuit is confined to the rich. All too often we have had deaths from hunting or deaths from sailing, but during the thirty years that we have played Rugby football at Yale there has been no death, and to the best of my knowledge no grave case of permanent injury. “The possibility of unfair play perhaps constitutes a graver evil than the possibility of accident. Unfairness is of two kinds: systematic unfairness, condoned by an institution as a matter of policy, and accidental unfairness, of which a player may be guilty on the spur of the moment. Systematic unfairness is a very serious thing; fortunately there is a perfectly plain way of dealing with it. “If an institution intends to play unfairly, do not play with that institution next year. If you are not prepared to adopt this remedy then keep quiet. There will indeed always be men who under the spur of the moment do things that they ought not to. We try to teach them better; and I for one feel worse when a Yale man disregards these teaching than I could feel over a half dozen defeats. “I do Harvard and Princeton the justice to believe that they are actuated by the same spirit. When I hear that a Harvard or Princeton man has played unfairly, I dismiss three quarters of the charge as a probable exaggeration, and think that if there is any truth in the other quarter, Mr. Reid of Harvard and Mr Pine of Princeton feel much more indignant over it than I possibly could if I tried. [Applause.] If different colleges can do one another this sort of justice, nine-tenths of the battle will be won. “As for modification of the rules, we are content to leave that matter in the hands of Mr. Camp; and we are glad that the reforms looking toward open play which he for the past year has been most strenuously advocating are at length likely to be realized. We believe that football rules should be framed as far as possible by football experts; for in this, as in every other field, inexpert legislation is more than likely to defeat its own end. “In this view the Faculty of Yale is practically unanimous. There are a few who would like to see the game abolished, and there are many who would like to see it modified; but so far as I know there is not a single member of the Yale Faculty who would take the work out of trained hands. “In dealing with the evils of athletic expenditure, the case is different. This is a matter which has come directly under the consideration of the University Council, and a committee of that body is soon to report on plans for cutting off unnecessary or improper expense. “One thing is certain. While we shall give the managers and Captains just as large freedom as possible, they must realize that the sums of money coming into their hands are not their private property to spend as freely as they may desire, but that they are held in trust for the benefit of the athletic sports of the university, future as well as present. “The extravagant interest in football presents a harder problem to deal with than the extravagant use of football money, because most of this interest comes from outside. The trouble is not that football is too much played, but that it is too much talked about. “Fortunately this is a matter which will to some degree rectify itself. Football, like finances, has its periodic crises. About once in ten years the amount of Yale-Harvard football talk becomes unbearable, and the Yale-Harvard game is dropped for a year or two. A short interval suffices to allow us to recover our mental balance; the game is resumed with somewhat better rules, and very much better feelings. “Let us be thankful that the temporary withdrawal of Harvard from intercollegiate football, foreshadowed by the recent vote of its Board of Overseers, comes under conditions which strain no friendship and threaten no rupture.” After the celebrated “Boola-Boola,” Walter Camp, Yale’s athletic adviser, was introduced. He got a riotous welcome. “The time has unquestionably come,” he said, “when the game of football will have to be made over. I contend that it is impossible for any committee to frame rules which will eliminate mass plays. It is possible, however, to set a certain standard of gains to be made, or let the ball be kicked. It is impossible to make ten yards in three downs by mass plays. It might be well to fix the standard of gains at that distance. I don’t know but that a reversion to the old five-yard rule, when the ball is within the twenty-five yard line, would be advisable. “In the avoidance of accidents, several changes in the rules suggest themselves to me. Hurdling should be eliminated and requirement should be adopted that a man must tackle above the knee. There should also be a rule that when any part of a man’s person except his feet touches the ground, if he be carrying the ball, the ball is dead. A team should be penalized when its Captain requests that time be taken out - say two yards for each half minute. This would prevent the continuance in play of exhausted players. “The same cry of brutality that is being raised against football to-day was being raised against baseball thirty-odd years ago. I remember an editorial in a leading magazine then in which it was stated that ‘croquet is gradually gaining ground, and promises to be come the true and only national game of America.’ “During the season just closed 24 Yale players were hurt: 17 suffered slight sprains and bruises which kept them out of the game for less than a week. Six players trained their knees and were out a little longer, but all of them played later. One man suffered a bruised side and a possibly fractured rib, but this man played in the Harvard game.” _____________________________________________________________________________________ Note to President Hadley: The problems in football are what is causing all the talk, not the other way around. Walter Camp remains Walter Camp, talking big about the need for reforms, while acting against them at every opportunity. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The 1905 Crisis, Continued I guess Dean Hulbert was just fooling with us. January 21, 1906, Sunday - The New York Times FOOTBALL HIT HARD BY WESTERN COLLEGES Game Abolished If Suggested Reforms Are Not Ratified. FIVE MATCHES IN A SEASON Radical Recommendations Regarding Length of Season, Eligibility, Finances, and Coaching. CHICAGO, Jan. 20 - The meeting of the nine conference colleges called together here yesterday afternoon, in answer to the request of President James B. Angell of the University of Michigan, came to an end to-night after making suggestions with respect to the modification of the conditions under which football shall be played that will deal a staggering blow to the popularity of the game in the West. The recommendations are to be presented to the constituent colleges in the inference, and if ratified by a majority will be accepted and enforced. If they fail of ratification the conference has decided to abandon the game for a period of two years, and to accomplish it passed this resolution: “The game of football, as played at present, is hereby abolished in collegiate and intercollegiate contests in the conference colleges.” The action of the conference concerned not so much the playing of the game as its conduct, and the measures suggested for reforms were principally directed against the ethical evils. The style of game to be played has been left to the National Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee, on which the nine colleges are represented not only by Alonzo A. Stagg of Chicago, but by Harry L. Williams. The most important recommendations concerned the length of the season and the number of intercollegiate games to be played. These were limited in each institution to five, and the season was ordered to close two Saturdays prior to Thanksgiving Day each year and to start with the opening of the college term. Preliminary practice earlier than this was strictly prohibited so that the games will likely commence about the middle of October. The custom of conducting training tables was abolished. The second important recommendation concerned the eligibility of players. It was first decided to limit the time any player could represent any college to three years and to require of freshmen on year instead of six months’ residence before they could take part in sport. This same year of residence was plied to men from another college, and any student who had obtained a bachelor’s degree, no matter from what institution, was barred. This means none but undergraduate students can compete and that the graduates of many preparatory schools would be ineligible. It was decided with respect to scholarship that football players would be required to attend the usual number of recitation during the season that they would have at other times, and that unless their scholarship record at the end of the year was clean they would be debarred the succeeding year. The financial end of the game came in for reformation. It was determined that hereafter the gate receipts derived from the game should be handled by the Faculty and not by the alumni or undergraduate managers; that at all games the admission price should not in any case exceed 50 cents, and that the moneys should be disbursed for all expenses under Faculty supervision. Finally the question of professional coaching was considered, and it was definitely decided to abolish professional coaching at all institutions, and to require that such coaching was was done should be conducted by a member of the Faculty, who should receive a nominal fee for his services, that he should not be selected by the athletic associations but by the Faculties, and should be amenable to the Faculty alone. The result of this will be to effect the retirement of Coach Yost of Michigan, unless he shall be made a member of the Faculty and approved by it, and shall accept a small stipend instead of his present allowance of $3500. Dr. Alonzo A. Stagg of Chicago and Dr. Harry L. Williams of Minnesota are the only coaches that are members of the Faculty in any of the nine colleges. _____________________________________________________________________________________ January 22, 1906, Monday - The New York Times WEST’S FOOTBALL REFORM FITS THE SITUATION East Must Follow Same Lines, But May Not Go So Far. ETHICAL EVILS PARAMOUNT Rules Committee to Meet to Consider Recommendations of Code Changes Next Saturday The radical action taken by the Western colleges to correct the ethical evils of football, summary and far reaching as it seems at first glance, comes pretty close to reaching the vital difficulties with the sport. Those who have had experience with the game and with college athletics in general have in the main believed that the game itself might be effectively and safely remedied by the experts who have supervised it heretofore. But the moral ills; there was a serious matter. What steps might be taken to curb the evils of professionalism and importation, of extravagance and exaggeration, of derelictions in scholarship, and so on, were pretty difficult to determine. The Western conference seems to have gone into the question thoroughly and have reached pretty correct conclusions respecting the inherent values of the detrimental influences at work, according to the best opinion of Eastern Faculty advisers. The East must follow suit, though perhaps it will not go so fast and far. The importation of athletes, which includes professionalism, grows out of a lack of sufficient restrictions with respect to their right to play and the excessive amounts of money made and spent in consequence of the success they bring. The residence rule of one year for all freshmen and all students from other colleges, coupled with the elimination of the holder of a bachelor’s degree, the limitation of the playing time to three years and the requirement of the same hours of work in and out of season pretty thoroughly covers the evil in all its phases, and when a blow is struck at the financial resources it is safely killed. The further scholarship requirements, besides improving the eligibility code answer the objection to the game has detracted too greatly from college work. On the question of exaggeration and extravagance, shorter seasons from the term’s opening to the middle of November, no preliminary training, only five intercollegiate games, no professional coaching, and no training table, together with the limitations of the price of admission to all games to 50 cents, look effective. All the colleges will have to reduce their football establishments and limit their schedules, but whether they will go so far and as straight to the mark as the Western colleges have gone is a question. The report of the Executive Committee of the Intercollegiate Conference on this score and the action of the “big five” will be watched with keen interest. There will be a meeting of the national Intercollegiate Rules Committee in this city next Saturday morning, when an all-day session will be held to receive the reports of the various committees assigned to recommend the various rule changes to be adopted to cover each objection. It will certainly serve to crystallize the opinions of the committee pretty thoroughly and align the members for and against the suggestions, so that a definite idea of what will finally be accepted can be formed. It may even be that the tentative changes in the rules will be adopted, subject to the experimentation of the field laboratory. At all events, the meeting will be full of interest and importance. _____________________________________________________________________________________ The "Training Table" was officially a special diet for athletes, but in reality was a conduit for funneling all sorts of extra benefits to players. That's a whole new  , though, so I won't pursue it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:22
|
|