Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Visit New Haven's Largest, Lightest and Handsomest Store

Our '05 Great Reduction Sale of SHOES

Over a thousand pairs of our regular THREE-FIFTY Shoes are included in the reduction. This season's most desirable kinds: storm shoes, heavy street shoes, patent colt and enamel leather dress shoes-some of the newest flat lasts-with narrow toes, others of the wider shapes.

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

THE

'HE LIT. readers of late years have rarely been obliged to deal directly with athletics. Now, however, one branch seems to have encountered difficulties, for the press, public and collegiate, is full of wranglings over the rules and uneasy demands for a complete change in the style of play. This leader pretends to be no more than an honest expression of inexpert opinion, and as such it doubts the wisdom of any radical change and protests against this restless and discontented clamor for such a change. It believes that this constant fretting and bickering and tampering with the rules is very much against the interests of the game, and that no possible benefit derived from a change in the rules could make up for the damage done by them if they should be long continued.

One of the reasons most prominently brought forward in explanation of the demands for a change of rules-particularly in the public press and sporting papers—is that the general public is discontented with the present game. It seems rather that the converse is true, and that the ill-con

[blocks in formation]

sidered harangues have made the public discontented-but that is, more or less, beside the point. Football is the typical college sport. No other branch of athletics excites more interest and enthusiasm, and further, in no other branch of athletics has the college a monopoly of both interest and excellence of performance. For professional football is practically non-existent in this country and semi-professional or athletic club teams do not play as good football as the colleges, nor is there much interest in such teams, outside of their immediate adherents. This is the point, that a football game is collegiate and essentially not a spectacle for public amusement. If the public can obtain admittance to the contents honestly they are welcome, and if they take a real interest in the game or in the contesting colleges, so much the more welcome are they, for there is no college in the country which is not exceedingly gratified with any demonstration of public interest. But for all that, the game is played not for their benefit nor for the gate receipts. Any idea that this is the case, is wrong. And any attempt to change the existing football conditions in order to make the games partake more of the nature of public exhibitions, if successful, would be the worst possible thing which could happen to football.

An intercollegiate football game is primarily what its name implies, a contest between two colleges to decide their supremacy. As was said above, if the general public take an interest, this interest is very pleasing to the colleges. Yet the public must remember that the game of football is not dependent on their patronage for its success. The immemorial right of the public to "suggest" and "knock" is theirs. They can't be deprived of that, but as long as football remains the clean and wholesome game it is at present they have no more right to demand that the game be changed to suit their ideas than they have to interfere with the method of conferring degrees at the commencements of the various institutions. Should football degenerate and become brutal or immoral the general public could with perfect pro

Exchange

Yale University
Library JAN 5 40

Jan. 1905]

Concerning Rules and Regulations.

125

priety demand radical changes or suppression, just as they could interfere with a prize fight or a gang of safe-crackers. Until that time arrives they have no such right of interference.

Since the general public are not the ones whose ideas must be complied with, there remains one other class to be considered—the collegiate, and this body has the right to enforce its opinions. Among the body of undergraduates there is a certain amount of discontent with the game as it is played. But this discontent arises almost entirely, as has been said before, from the too-indiscriminate attacks-for many of the articles which have appeared, whatever was the intention with which they were written, are neither more nor less than attacks on football. Much of the remainder of the discontent arises from the fact that not every one would be satisfied with perfection, and perfection is not easy of attainment. However, there undoubtedly is a residuum of honest belief that football can be changed for the better. Of course it can. It isn't this belief that this leader disagrees with, but the manner in which people go about the attempt to change the game, and the desire to make the change too sweeping. Football is as popular as any sport-to repeat again-professional, amateur or strictly collegiate. This fact does not seem to show any widespread discontent with the game among the individuals of either public or any pressing general demand for a radical change. Any radical change is fully as likely, under these conditions, to destroy the popularity of the game as to increase it. Football isn't in such a precarious condition that desperate remedies are necessary, and any statement such as "anything which will change the present style of play is worth trying," is absurd. The fire is apt to be hotter than even a moderately warm frying pan.

Now the only point left for consideration is the game itself. Owing to the incompetence of the writer to do otherwise, this must be done entirely from the spectators' standpoint. The great desire of all the writers is to change

the present style of "close" game to the-so-called-oldfashioned "open" game. Several interesting tables have been compiled, giving figures of the amount of ground gained by mass plays, and runs in the prominent games of recent and former years. These show little change, but since the accuracy of such tables is open to doubt and figures can be made to show almost anything, the assumption that the game of to-day is "close" is the fairest to work on.

Seemingly all the authorities agree that the "open" game is more productive of injuries than the "close." The liability to injury of the players has been the most disagreeable features of football from the spectators' point of view, and, I should imagine, from the players' also. Further, a multitude of injuries during a game would apparently be certain to prevent the best football of which the teams are capable being played in that game. The main argument brought up-there is no intention of going through a long list is that the "open" game is more interesting and spectacular. Certainly to see a player get the ball—on a fumble or otherwise-and break away down the field with a score of other players chasing him is an interesting sight, and it undoubtedly is spectacular. But in the final analysis, is such a game as interesting and satisfactory as, say, the Princeton game this year? I think not. And I am certain that a touchdown made by such a run, and always open to the suspicion of being a fluke, is not as satisfactory as a touchdown which is won by the clear superiority of eleven men over eleven other men, by one college team over another. And surely a game won by such plays is not as satisfactory as when won by team against team.

Of course, every game must develop. There can be no doubt that stagnation is one of the greatest evils which can come to any game, for stagnation is nearly related to decay. But the development must be along rational lines and must be consecutive. Such development naturally necessitates. changes in the playing rules, but violent and radical changes

« ForrigeFortsæt »