REPORT OF THE AMERICAN INTERCOLLEGIATE FOOTBALL RULES COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 1927

For the past few years, the annual report of this Committee has consisted primarily of an enumeration of the more important changes made during the year. It has occurred to me that the members of the Association might be interested also in knowing something about the point of view from which the Committee approaches the consideration of possible changes in the rules.

For A Better Game

In 1906, the Rules Committee set out very deliberately to materially change the game of football as it was then being played. It adopted the following definite fundamental objectives:

1. To make the game both safer and more interesting for the players.

2. To make, the game a distinctly more open game.

3. To remove the, premium on mere weight and to develop greater opportunity for speed, agility and brains.

4. To produce a game affording broader strategic possibilities, thereby giving the lighter teams and the teams of the smaller colleges a real chance and preventing the probable outcome of so many games from being a .foregone conclusion.

5. To improve the standards of sportsmanship surrounding the game and by developing better officiating to remove the continual temptation to violate the rules which existed under the old game, partly by reason of the officials' inability to detect violations in the close formations, and partly by reason of the then customary practice of overlooking all but the most flagrant violations.

A Fourteen Year Task

It took from 1906 to 1920 for the Rules Committee to complete the task it had set out to accomplish. A very great number of changes in the rules were necessary. It was obviously desirable in the interests of the sport to move slowly and for the changes to come gradually. Furthermore, some of the proposed changes necessarily required experimentation and were either abandoned or modified after trial.

Many of these changes as they appeared for the first time were not thoroughly understood and few changes were made that did not meet with severe and often bitter criticism. No change was made by the Committee, however, except after mature deliberation and every change was designed to contribute its share either toward eliminating the evils which had crept into the old game or toward developing the possibilities of the faster, more open and cleaner game which was the Committee's objective.

The adoption of the neutral zone, 7 men on the line of scrimmage, the elimination of pulling and pushing, the elimination of momentum before the ball was put in play, the rule calling for 10 yards in 4 downs as against 5 yards in 3 downs, the introduction of the forward pass, the introduction of the onside kick (later eliminated whe,n it no longer became necessary), the liberal provision for the use of substitutes, the generous provision for taking out time, the introduction of more severe and more definite penalties for various kinds of unsportsmanlike conduct, the addition of two officials, the additional authority given to the officials to the end that the game might be supervised in a more orderly and effective manner, the removal of coaches and others from the side lines. All these major changes in the rules and many changes of less importance which I have not enumerated—each and every one contributed its part in bringing about the safer, more open, faster, cleaner and more interesting game of today.

Game Standardized Since 1920

In the annual report of the Rules Committee at the end of the season of 1920, I stated that the Committee felt that the task it undertook in 1906 had been practically completed, that no further fundamental changes were contemplated and that so far as it could see, the coaches and players would now have an opportunity to devote their entire time to the development of the game under rules which would probably remain standard, and that they would no longer be called upon to devote any substantial amount of time to adjusting the game of the previous season to changes made in the rules between seasons.

Since 1920, there have been no fundamental changes in the rules. From time to time it has been found necessary to clarify the meaning or intent of a given rule in view of unforeseen combinations of facts. It has also been found necessary to check certain practices or tendencies which were developing in the game and which seemed to be contrary to its best interests. The purposes of the changes have been to preserve and perfect the game as it was finally developed in 1920—never to essentially modify it.

How Each Season is Reviewed

Each year, since 1920, as the members of the Committee come together to review the experience of the season just closed, they approach the question of possible changes in the rules from the point of view indicated by the following questions:

1. Is there anything we can do to make the game still safer for the players ?

2. Is there anything we can do to make the game still more open or to broaden further its strategic possibilities?

3. Are there any practices developing in the game which tend to nulKfy any of the provisions in the rules which were designed to eliminate undesirable features of the old game?

4. Are there any tendencies developing which if not checked might mar or impair the fineness of the game as a sport or lower the standards of good sportsmanship now so generally surrounding it?

5. Is there anything to indicate that the necessary balance between the offense and the defense is getting out of adjustment ?

Review of Season of 1926

Last year as the Committee considered these questions, it was unanimous in the belief that several tendencies were appearing in the game which required consideration. The most outstanding of these was the illegal use of the shift. Another was the increasing tendency sometimes intentional though often unintentional, toward unreasonable delay of the game by consuming too much time in the, huddle and in otherwise using up too much time between plays. The practice also seemed to be increasing for the side on the defensive to allow kicked balls to drop to the ground without any attempt to catch them and run them back. The practice was also developing, in some sections of the country, of the players using certain equipment which was believed to be dangerous to other players.

The Illegal Use Of The Shift

The most serious of these problems was the illegal shift. The Committee was extremely unwilling to abolish the, shift, although its abolition was strongly urged at the end of the season by many of the best friends of the game who felt that the illegal shift could be eliminated only by the elimination of the shift itself. The Committee felt that it would be. a distinct loss to the game to lose the shift and the strategic possibilities its affords, and accordingly decided to put more teeth into the existing rule which already required shifting players to come to an absolute stop. This was accomplished by providing that after the shift the players should remain stationary in their new positions for a period of approximately one second. The penalty was also increased from five yards to fifteen yards. The result of this change, which was almost universally accepted in fine spirit by both players and coaches, has been eminently satisfactory. The illegal shift has disappeared and the danger of any return to momentum plays through this device has apparently been eliminated.

Unreasonable Delay

In order to prevent unreasonable delay in putting the ball in play by remaining in the huddle, or otherwise, the officials were given definite yard-sticks which they might use if they so desired in interpreting what was unreasonable delay. This was done by providing that more than 15 seconds in the huddle or more than 30 seconds delay in putting the ball in play might be considered as prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay. This change has also apparently accomplished its purpose—the result being that the game has been speeded up and the unnecessary delays which were marring so many games in the season of 1926 practically disappeared in 1927.

Catching and Running Back Punts

One of the finest plays of the game has always been the catching and running back of punts. The, practice, which has gradually been increasing for several years, of allowing punts to drop to the ground without any effort to catch them or run them back, was, it seemed to the Committee marring the game, and robbing it of one of its traditional and most distinctive features. The reason for this practice was obvious. If a defending player touches the ball but fails to catch it he has put all of the kicking side onside. Any one of them could recover the ball and run with it. Often this might result in a touchdown. Therefore, the defensive, side took no chances, played safe and made no attempt to catch the punt. The Committee decided to eliminate the principal reason underlying this practice by removing the hazard of a possible adverse touchdown in case of failure to catch the punt. This was done by providing that in case the ball is touched but not caught, it may, as formerly, be recovered by the kicking side but is dead at the point of recovery, and may not be advanced.

This change has also accomplished in part at least its purpose. We have seen in the past season more and better catching and running back of punts than for several years.

Moving Back the Goal Posts

Another distinctive and in the earlier days an extremely important feature of the game is the goal after touchdown. Although under the present rules, the extra point after touchdown may be secured either by carrying the ball over the line, by a forward pass or a drop or place kick, the place, kick had come to be the method almost always used. The reason was quite clear. The ball being put in play on the three yard line meant that a kick of only 13 to 15 yards was required. For this short distance the so-called pendulum kick was developed. This was so easy to execute that unless it was hurried by the defense its success was almost assured, and the result was more; or less of an anti-climax after the touchdown.

By moving the goal posts back to the end line instead of leaving them on the goal line, five things would be accomplished, all of them in the opinion of the Committee for the good of the game.

1. Teams electing to try for their point after touchdown by kicking a goal would have to kick at least 23 or 25 yards, which requires real skill as compared with a 13 yard pendulum kick.

2. It would afford a better angle from which to kick goals from the field for a team forced to kick from a position not directly in front of the goal posts.

3. It would force teams relying on a single, star drop or place kicker for their scoring to carry the ball at least 10 yards nearer the goal line before trying for their field goals.

4. It would remove the unfair handicap which has always existed when a team is forced to kick out from behind its own goal posts.

5. And far the most important of all, it would remove the danger to players forced to scrimmage near the goal posts. This has been the source of many injuries in the. past.

Accordingly the rule moving the posts back to the end line was adopted. The kicking of a goal after touchdown now requires real skill and the Committee hopes that the danger so long surrounding the goal posts is forever removed from the game.

The Game Primarily for the Players

This change has occasioned a considerable amount of criticism and many requests have been made that the goal posts be put back. The argument is advanced that it is more difficult for the spectators to tell whether the play which is near the goal line has resulted in a touchdown. The answer is clear. If the inconvenienced spectator can restrain his curiosity for about three to five seconds longer he will be advised in no uncertain terms as to whether the ball is "over" or not. Furthermore, the Rules Committee has always acted on the principle that this game was a game primarily for the boys who play it and only incidentally for those who watch it. When the permanent safety of the boys must give way to the momentary convenience of the spectators our ideas as to the true purposes of academic sport will have to come up for drastic and annihilating revision.

Balance Between Offense and Defense

The Committee having tentatively adopted the foregoing changes, proceeded to review them before bringing them up for final action. Members of the Committee were unanimous in their opinion that the provision designed to present the illegal shift was vital and that all the other changes were distinctly desirable in the best interests of the game. They were forced to admit, however, that all of these changes in varying degrees tended to curtail the strategic possibilities open to the offense. The one second stop in the shift might conceivably affect even the legitimate shift. The 15 and 30 second time limits in the huddle and in putting the ball in play might, as has been demonstrated in the past season, sometimes result in penalties against the team which is unintentionally consuming an unnecessary amount of time,. Taking away from the members of the kicking side the opportunity to advance the ball after they had legally recovered it following a muffed punt obviously deprived the offense of certain opportunities to advance the ball which had heretofore existed. And moving the goal posts back ten yards obviously made it more difficult to score by goals from the field and more difficult to kick a goal for the point after touchdown.

In other words, in protecting what it deemed to be the best interests of the game, the action of the Committee in every case had been to the, advantage of the team on the defensive, and to this extent had perhaps impaired the necessary balance between the offense and the defense.

The Lateral Pass

In considering what, if anything, might he done to compensate the offense, the Committee, decided to give to the strategy of the offense an opportunity to use the backward or lateral pass without being exposed to the tremendous hazard which has for years discouraged its development, and allowed it to fall into disuse. If a lateral pass under the rules prior to 1927 was not completed, the ball became a free ball with the chances distinctly favoring recovery by the defense and the possible running of it back through an unprotected field for a touchdown. The strategic possibilities of the lateral pass did not justify taking these chances except in isolated cases and the lateral pass, formerly one of its outstanding features, had practically disappeared from the game.

In order to remove this hazard, the Committee adopted a rule providing that in case a backward or lateral pass is not completed, the ball shall be dead where it strikes the ground and cannot be recovered by the defense—the offense losing simply a down and distance, but not the ball.

To what extent this change will encourage the development and use of the lateral pass as part of the strategy of the offense, it is too early to predict. As in the case of the forward pass, it will undoubtedly take at least three or four years to develop its real possibilities. There is no question, however, but that to whatever extent the lateral pass is developed as a ground gaining play, to the same extent it will force a widening of the defense, and thus be of assistance to every other feature of the running game.

No Changes Contemplated for 1928

The Committee is much gratified with the results of the, changes as shown in the games during the season just closed. Never have we seen better football. As long as we can hold the game essentially as it is today, we will apparently have the finest kind of a game—open, clean, fast, interesting, safe, and with such a wealth of strategic possibilities that the underdog always has his chance, to come back and the defeated team an opportunity to win the following week.

No changes in the rules are contemplated by the Committee other than certain minor changes for the purpose of clarifying, adjusting or perfecting provisions already in the rules.

This concluded the formal report of the Committee but after its presentation Mr. Hall spoke informally. A summary of his remarks follows:

After reading his formal report, Mr. Hall announced that the Committee had decided that the game was now sufficiently stabilized so that the Committee had decided to recodify and re-write the rules during 1928 for the season of 1929. This will be the third codification of the rules since 1906.

While, a recodification and some rearrangement of the rules should undoubtedly simplify and clarify the rules, Mr. Hall warned his hearers that this did not mean that the rules would be made simple. The game is a complicated game—the most complicated game played in the world. It has a wealth of strategy —kicking, passing, running, and the whole aspect of the game may suddenly change like the turn of a kaleidoscope, and then different rules come into effect. We have a magnificent game, but we have to admit that it is a complex game, and if the game stays as it is the rules will necessarily be complex. They can be simplified and clarified but they cannot be made simple.

Mr. Hall then commented on the fact that there has been more discussion this year concerning the complexity of the rules than in any year before, and pointed out how unfounded and how unintelligent most of this criticism has been. Certainly nothing in the changes for 1927 were difficult to understand for any one who makes it his business to thoroughly understand the rules. He suggested that there were so many people interested in football and it is so much the topic of discussion that each year we find the discussion directed along some special line.

Not long ago nearly everyone was saying that the game took too much time for the boys who played it and for those who watched it. Then someone raised the query—just what would all these boys be doing and where would they be if they were not devoting this time to football. Then the next year the criticism was made that the receipts from the games were running into very large amounts of money, but when the question was raised—ls this money well spent? it was found that it went to help support all the other outdoor games so that the amount of money did not seem to constitute. any great menace. Another year some of the boys after leaving college went into professional football and a great hue and cry was raised lest this game was going to be taken away from the colleges by outsiders and become something more than an academic game. A little further thinking, however, made it quite clear that there was no danger to academic football from the fact that football is played professionally by men outside of, or after they leave college. The only menace that professionalism holds for college football is the menace that is a very real one when professional methods or the professional brand of sportsmanship are permitted to introduce themselves into the college game.

In closing Mr. Hall said: "Let's get down to brass tacks and see what all this talk is about. Are we not taking the rubs of the green in this game of foot- ball too seriously ? Have not the partisans and occasionally the officials and coaches be,en talking about complexity of the rules as alibis? What is it we want any way in this game of football? What we want is a rattling good game for the boys of this generation and the next. We are living today in an era of ease and softness. Instead of tramping and walking we ride in autos. The tendency is to get our pleasure from sitting in the movies instead of getting out into the open and getting our thrills from sport and exercise. We want a game to counteract this softening. We want a game that will attract the boys out into the open and will be so interesting to watch that those who do not play will follow those who do out into the open and watch them—a virile, rugged fascinating game with opportunity for speed, brains, brawn and strategy. An opportunity for bodily contact and the matching of muscle against muscle. A game that will furnish the younger lad in the schools with heroes, if you please. A game that invites and develops the principles of good sportsmanship. A game that will furnish experience in and the thrills that come from team-play—the working together shoulder to shoulder with other men—each one doing his bit. We want a game that will counteract the softening tendencies of the life we are living in this generation, and we have got a game right now in this game of football that answers this demand.

Let's pick out a new line of talk about the game for a year and let's overemphasize it all we please. Let's spend one year talking about the real values that this game is producing for the men that play it and for those that watch it. If all the friends of the game will do this, the players, undergraduates, coaches, officials and the public—if they all will unite on this line, of overemphasis for a year, we can make sure that we can stabilize this magnificent game right where it is and preserve it with all its values not only for the boys of this, but for the boys of the next decade."

!, Chairman