Concerning the Princeton Game

IT is doubtful if any Dartmouth football season ever ended in a greater muddle than did the 1951 season when the 13-0 loss to Princeton was followed by sweeping charges that Dartmouth had played "dirty" football and had been out to "get" Dick Kazmaier, All-American halfback, who was injured in the second quarter of the game.

Now that the dust has settled, and all hands seem sorry that the emotional outburst was played up by the press the way it was, some of our readers may feel that it is a trifle late to be reviving the subject. It is not the purpose of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE to prolong a regrettable controversy; it intends simply to take this first opportunity since the game to set forth, for the benefit of Dartmouth alumni, some of the facts and considerations that were not to be found in the stories in the public press. That many Dartmouth men are still bewildered by the aftermath of the game and are anxious to know "what it's all about" is clear from the mail that has reached Hanover.

In order to set things in proper perspective, let it be said that it was a rugged, hard-hitting game, and that in the heat of gridiron battle Dartmouth players contributed some of the unsportsmanlike conduct that in one particular instance was inexcusable. There was rough play on both sides, and this was notably true in the third period.

Also for perspective, it should be said that a rugged, aggressive defensive line was one of Dartmouth's top assets throughout the 1951 season. Despite Princeton's formidable record and reputation, the Big Green eleven entered the game with the idea of winning it, and victory was possible only if the powerful Princeton attack built around Kazmaier could be stopped. Defensively Dartmouth played all-out football in Palmer Stadium; Coach McLaughry declared, "It was one of the best defensive games a Dartmouth team of mine has ever played." Against this stubborn opposition, Princeton's offense found the going perhaps the toughest of the season.

A third point for perspective is the fact that the Princeton charges were almost entirely of undergraduate manufacture. Coach Caldwell refused to shake hands with Tuss McLaughry after the game, but from that point on the controversy was taken over by The Daily Princetonian, whose editorial charges and interviews with players provided the basis for the newspaper stories that spread over the country. Princeton authorities played no part in the post-game allegations and refused to comment on them. With reference to the undergraduate character of the Princeton charges, columnist Red Smith of the NewYork Herald Tribune expressed the personal view that "the Princeton-Dartmouth nonsense was strictly for sophomores."

What specifically were the charges made against Dartmouth? Foremost was the claim that the Dartmouth players were out to "get" Kazmaier and that, after "continuously" roughing him whether or not he had the ball, they finally put him out of the game midway through the second period. It was also charged that a Dartmouth player viciously crashed into a Princeton ball-carrier after he was out of bounds; that another Dartmouth player without provocation kicked a Princeton player when he was down; that after Kazmaier was injured, Princeton's backfield star McNeil was also hurt and put out of action; that because of Dartmouth's "brutal" play Princeton was forced to get rough too; and that Dartmouth's illegal play followed the pattern of the Big Green's performances in the Harvard and Columbia games. These were specific, on-the-surface claims. The really serious charge, the pervading, implied charge that made Dartmouth angriest, was that the alleged "dirty" play was deliberately planned and taught by the Dartmouth coaches.

Pressed by Boston and New York sports writers to comment on all this, Coach Mc- Laughry made a statement that his known integrity and coaching reputation should have made unnecessary. He said, "We have never by word, inference, or innuendo made any plans to win a football game by illegal play or by an attempt to put a key player out of the game. The charges from Princeton that Dartmouth made a deliber- ate attempt to injure Kazmaier or any other member of the team are outrageous and almost too ridiculous to be commented upon."

Dartmouth athletic authorities, awaiting the arrival of the game movies, stood on this single comment; although The Dartmouth, appropriately enough, answered The Princetonian by presenting statements it had gathered from players, coaches, neutral observers, a game official, and from some of Dartmouth's 1951 opponents. Among these statements was that of Referee Coles who was on top of the play resulting in Ivazmaier's injury and saw nothing illegal about it. Rambour and Fedeli who charged in to make the tackle for Dartmouth explained how they were intent on breaking up Kazmaier's specialty, the run-or-pass play, and vehemently denied any deliberate effort to injure the Princeton star. Dangerous passers are usually hit high, and Dartmouth's 1950 ace Johnny Clayton, ruefully recalled that he had spent 50% of his time flat on his back with tacklers piled on top of him. Team physician Joseph G. Pollard pointed out that on that type of play the broken nose and mild concussion suffered by Kazmaier were less serious and far more common than the broken leg Dartmouth quarterback Jim Miller suffered at Princeton on a similar play that was unfortunate but entirely legal.

On the out-of-bounds play, BostonGlobe writer Ernie Roberts said, "A Big Green defensive back pushed Ned Jannotta onto a tarpaulin covering while both men were running out of bounds. But the officials judged that merely an honest effort to knock down a ball carrier—which is the way we saw it."

With reference to the Princetonian charges about Dartmouth's play against Harvard and Columbia, Coach Lloyd Jordan of Harvard told The Dartmouth: "In my opinion the Dartmouth-Harvard contest was an excellently played, hard-fought football game, and not at all dirty." Coach Lou Little of Columbia stated: "I thought the Dartmouth-Columbia game was a very aggressive, well-played ball game. We always enjoy playing Dartmouth and look forward to the game. ... In regard to Mitch Price's injury in that game, he was previously injured in the Cornell game, and his reinjury was just one of those things that often happens."

When the movies of the Princeton game finally reached Hanover, they were shown repeatedly to various groups, with every effort made by some observers to find support for the Princeton charges. The films were run off for faculty members at the Graduate Club, were given two Dartmouth Hall showings for students and others, and were freely open to outside sports writers who inquired if they could see them.

The judgment of all who saw the films, even of those trying hardest to justify the Princeton charges, was that they had seen the slow-motion, play-by-play movies of nothing more than a typical, hard-fought college game. There is no point to making a detailed review of the controversial items; for the interest of our Dartmouth readers, suffice it to say that the movies, which must be credited with a high degree of objectivity, are certainly not those of the game that The Princetonian wrote about. Kazmaier, for example, is shown to have been touched by a defensive player only once when he did not have the ball; the pass play resulting in his injury is shown to have involved a hard but entirely legal tackle; and McNeil's injury appears to have happened when he tripped over the leg of one of his own men and took a header. The kicking incident is clearly recorded as an inexcusable act, but of some interest is the fact that this did not occur out of the blue but was the angry response to a block that was thrown into the guilty Dartmouth player after the play was over and for which the Princeton blocker drew a 15-yard penalty along with the Dartmouth man's. The circumstance is cited here not to excuse the kick but to indicate that there could have been a human, hot-headed basis for the act and not necessarily a "brutal" one.

Finally, we should like to quote the official statement made by William H. McCarter '19, Dartmouth's director of athletics, after the publicity given to the Princeton charges had reached such proportions and taken such form that Dartmouth felt that clarification was badly needed. Mr. McCarter said:

"On behalf of the Dartmouth College Athletic Council, the controlling body of the College's intercollegiate athletics, I have made a careful investigation of the circumstances relating to the character of play in the recent Dartmouth-Princeton football game. In the course of this investigation, I have had the benefit of the reports of the officials, the motion picture films of the game, and discussion with our coaches and players.

"In commenting on this matter, I wish to avoid any appearance of making charges or countercharges with respect to an intercollegiate athletic contest which was conducted under the supervision of neutral and excellent officials. However, there are certain aspects relating to the public understanding of the matter, which in the best interests of friendly relations between the institutions concerned, and the general welfare of intercollegiate sport, ought properly to be clarified.

"The play was hard and under emotional tension, and I am sorry that any of our players were responsible for some of the unsportsmanlike actions that marred especially the third period. None of the unfortunate injuries on either side, however, was the result of such actions, but was a normal hazard of the game and in no instance subject to penalty.

"In common with all authorities of the College, I have the fullest confidence in the character and integrity of our coaching staff and I know that there is no basis for any thought that any of the Dartmouth players were attempting to put any of their opponents out of the game or that any unsportsmanlike conduct was inspired, authorized or condoned by the Dartmouth coaches.

"Let it be said that Dartmouth has always enjoyed and valued highly its intercollegiate athletic relations with Princeton, and while contests between the two institutions have traditionally been hard fought and have frequently been under the tension of a 'lastgame' atmosphere, they have been contests between opponents who held each other in the highest respect. In the light of this background I hardly need say that I and my associates in Dartmouth football affairs were deeply regretful that this game should have been the occasion on which so fine a football player as Dick Kazmaier was injured and unable to complete his full final game of intercollegiate football."

Since Mr. McCarter's public statement, Dartmouth and Princeton officials, both desirous that friendly relations between the two institutions should not suffer, have been in consultation. No further statement is likely from either side.