THE FOOTBALL RULES

THE Football Rules Committee has recently been subjected to so much unwarranted censure that I comply with a request for a criticism of the rules with much reluctance.

Football men are under great obligations to the Rules Committee, for the work it has voluntarily done in formulating the rules of the game; and while we eagerly accept, as a gift, the fruits of its labor, we are not in a position to find fault with its work. Members of an elective body might be amenable to, and subject to the censure of those who elect or appoint them, but the members of the Rules Committee do not belong to that class; they are self appointed, and football men when they are dissatisfied with the rules, have only themselves to blame for not having organized a rules committee representative in its character, and bound to respect the wishes of its constituents. Such a committee might be selected each year from the seven most successful teams of that year, but I doubt much if a committee so selected could have improved upon the most admirable work of the present body.

The Rules and the Rules Committee have been held responsible by the misguided public for all the accidents and injuries resulting from the game ; also for all the exhibitions of brutality perpetrated by rowdy individuals participating in the game. That accidents happen in every line of exercise must be admitted, but that they are more numerous or more serious in football is not established by statistics.

It is not true, in my opinion, that the number of accidents incident to the game would be reduced by a more open style of play. Such a contention is not supported by experience. So long as a man is permitted to tackle or block there will be the attendant risk of accidents. When tackling and blocking are eliminated from the game, it will be no louder football.

Open play, for which the public is clamoring, does not abolish tackling and its attendant injuries, but on the contrary, gives occasion for the open tackle, from which more injuries come than from the much abused mass play. In the mass play, men are arranged to protect the player carrying the ball from a hard tackle, while, if he is running alone in the open, he is not so protected, and an open tackle is invited against which he cannot adequately guard himself with his hands, since they are otherwise employed in holding the ball. Open play alone, will not, therefore, eliminate accidents.

Mr. Camp's suggestion that the distance required to be gained in four downs be made ten, instead of five yards, will not, I think, accomplish the desired result. If any plays known to the craft would yield ten yards in four downs, they would be used today, even though five yards only are required. The result of the ten-yard rule will not be an increase in long distance plays (as we have all been striving for such under the present code), but will result in an excessive exchange of punts, consequently an excessive amount of open tackling by the ends going down under punts, and, therefore, more injuries than we now have. Mr. Camp's suggestion is an attempt to bring about open play by indirect legislation. If it is necessary to secure a more open style of play, I see no reason why such could not be accomplished directly by some rule framed for that specific purpose. For instance, that one or more of 'the three plays allowed to make the requisite five yards should cross the line of scrimmage more than five yards from the place where the ball was put in play, as in the present quarter-back run. The mass attack and close formation could be eliminated as much as is desired by this rule.

The public's desire for a more open style of play is not wholly to eliminate accidents, -but rather for the purpose of allowing the spectators to see more of what is going on. However, after all, the game is not for the benefit of the spectator, but for the benefit of the students playing it, and if the public does not like the game as it is played, the public should patronize some other kind of sport. The attendance this year, however, does not warrant the assumption that the game is not liked by the collegiate following.

"The objectionable features of the game cannot be attributed to the present rules, but must be attributed to the individuals playing the game, and legislation should be directed against the personnel of the teams, rather than against the rules.

Some institutions have found it necessary to abandon the game on account of its alleged brutality. This is no reflection on the rules ; they do not sanction brutality in any form. Such an abandonment of the sport for such a reason is, however, a serious reflection upon the personnel of the student body of the institution. It either lacks eleven gentlemen who can play a clean sportsmanlike game, or else it is so unfortunate that it cannot move in college circles where the teams are composed of such. In either event, it may be just as well for the game if the colleges in question retire.

A convocation of college presidents to frame rules of play for the students in any game, would be rather peculiar, and when it came to a game in which they were not experienced, it would be decidedly absurd. It is not only an assumption of parental discipline, but a dangerous move, as it impliedly sanctions any and all other games in which the students indulge, and many of them are fully as dangerous as football.

With this defense of the rules as they are, I will call attention to certain objectional features, which the year's experience has shown, and which will no doubt be corrected by the committee in their next issue.

A kicked ball rolling out of bounds after crossing the goal line would no doubt be construed to be a touch-back if secured by a player guarding the goal, but the case is not clearly covered by the rules. Rule 3 (b) does not give such a.hall to the opponents, for that rule is restricted to a ball going out of bounds before crossing the opponent's goal line. Is it therefore anyone's ball in such an emergency ? Are the rules broad enough .to permit a touch-back to be made with a ball that is out of bounds?

Under Rule 4 (d) (3), a safety may be made " in case a player carrying the ball is forced back, provided the ball was not declared dead by the referee before the line was reached or crossed," while under Rule 20 (c) (Note), a safety can never be made in this way, if the referee does his duty, for, "In order to prevent the prevalent stealing of the ball, the referee shall blow his whistle immediately when the forward progress of the ball has been stopped." It seems that it is not the spirit of the rules to allow a man to be forced back.

In Rule 23, a provision is made for putting the ball in play on the thirty-five yard line when it has gone out of bounds twice from a kick-out. In the last paragraph of the same rule another provision is made for putting the ball in play on the twenty-five yard line (instead of the thirty-five yard line, as above), when a second failure to kick within bounds has occurred. It seems that two trials to kick the ball within bounds are given with every kick-out ; that having failed twice on any kick-out to kick within bounds a certain place is designated for a scrimmage ; that if on a subsequent kick-out the team for a second time fails twice to kick within bounds, a more disadvantageous place is designated for a scrimmage. Now, if 'one kick-out should be lost by two failures to kick within bounds during the first half, and the same thing should occur .during the second half, would the last part of the rule apply? Is it not the spirit of the game that the two halves should be distinct entities, not over-lapping each other in any way. The above rule may be a misprint, or it may be based on some reason not made clear; if it has a reason, it is so remote that the rule could be well omitted.

There also appears to be an incongruity in the provision of Rule 15 (a), And Rule 25 (6), the former provides that " the side just scored upon shall have the option of kicking off or of having their opponents kick off," while the latter rule 25 (b), covering a try at goal preceded by a punt out states that " if a fair catch is not made on the first attempt the ball shall go as a kick-off at the centre of the field, to the defenders of the goal." The first rule giving the defenders of the goal the option of kicking off or not, while the latter rule takes that option away, and compels the defenders of the goal to kick off; strange to say the defenders of the goal are deprived of their option by a preceding poor play on the part of the other side, i. e., the failure to make a fair catch of the punt out.

There is also a conflict between Rule 27 (f) and 28 (a) (1). The first provides a penalty of ten yards and the latter one of five yards for the same offense.

Were I to suggest a rule which would eliminate the greatest number of injuries, it would be one compelling players to wear soft, pliable, rubber or felt-soled shoes. This would not injure the punting, but would seriously interfere with all other kinds of kicks.

F. G. Folsom '95, Head Coach of the Dartmouth Football Team