CHANGES IN FOOTBALL RULES ARE CONSIDERED

"The biggest proposed change in the football rules, and I believe it will come soon, is the Institution of overtime periods in case of the games," G. N. Bankart said in a recent interview for the CRIMSON. Mr. Bankart is a former Dartmouth football player, and is now well known as a referee. He was head linesman in all of the "Big Three" games last fall.

"Most of the changes proposed so far have to do with the forward pass. The forward pass was brought into prominence last year because of its frequent use. Some teams seem to be run on the principle that a certain percentage of forwards are bound to succeed, and so the backs are instructed to throw the ball whether there is anyone to receive it or not. It is to check this indiscriminate use of the forward pass that the various changes have been suggested. Chief of these is that when a forward is in-completed behind the line of scrimmage, either because it is blocked, or because the ball is knocked out of the thrower's hand, the play shall be the same as a fumble, and the ball become free. Such a change would not help the game, because it will make the offense cautious about using the forward pass, and this would take away any slight advantage which the offense has over the defense. This would be contrary to the whole idea of football rules, which is to give the offense an even or slightly better chance than the defense. In addition to this, such a change would take away from the glamor of the game, and the crowds would not be so enthusiastic.

"Another proposed change is in regard to the fumble. Zuppke the, Illinois coach, has proposed that no run shall be allowed after a recovered fumble, while A. M. Beale '97, a former Harvard player, has gone even farther, and suggested that a fumble should merely count as a loss of a down, except on the fourth down. The argument both of these men use is that so much time is necessary to learn how to hang on to the ball that there isn't enough time left to spend on the technique and development of the game. I am opposed to such a change, and I believe most other people feel the same. Such a change would detract attention from the fundamentals of the game, and a football team that doesn't know the fundamentals isn't a football team. As far as the spectators' view-point is concerned, a game without fumbles would not have half the interest that it has now. I can name any number of games where the result has been affected by fumbles. In 1913, when Princeton defeated both Yale and Harvard, Steve White, the Princeton star, scored against both teams by recovering fumbles and running for a touchdown. The score of the Yale-Princeton game last year was also considerably affected by fumbles.

"As for changes that should be made, one concerns the goal from touchdown. As it is now, the individual effort of one man, unopposed by the other team, scores one point. This is all out of proportion to the amount of work required to score six points by a touchdown, or three points by a goal from the field. It is proposed that the kick shall be made from scrimmage formation; with the defense allowed only seven men in the line. The result of this change would be more development in drop-kicking, and also in team play. This would even things up a great deal, for a team which, if it had no good kicker, under the present rules would be greatly handicapped, and perhaps lose games by the score of 7-6, would be able, by aggressive playing in the kicking scrimmage, to rattle the opposing kicker, and thus remove any advantage which the other team has in this particular. Personally I am in favor of this change, and I know that many others agree with me.

"There has been one radical suggestion made, which has been discussed a good deal among officials. This is about the old question of delaying the game by stalling. Last year it was proposed to measure the game by the number of plays, but this suggestion was turned down. Some of the proponents of this scheme are still thinking about it. Between the halves at the Harvard-Princeton game last fall one of these men, in discussing the game with a group of officials, said that by actual count there were twice as many plays in one quarter as there were in the other. But such figures mean little, and it was decided rightly last year that such a change would not be feasible. The idea of punishing those who delay the game, however, is still alive, and the latest suggestion is to change the penalty. As the rules are now, when the referee decides that a team is stalling, he can penalize them five yards. But a five-yard penalty means little or nothing to such a team, and to remedy the situation, it is proposed that the rules be changed so that the referee be allowed to say that the next play shall be a punt. The great objection to this is that it puts too much arbitrary power in the hands of the referee, and this one thing is enough to prevent its being adopted.

"The biggest change in football rules, and one that will come very soon, I believe, is one regarding tie games. Several years ago the question of playing extra periods to settle tie games came up every year, but was turned down on the ground that it would be too great a strain on the players. And in those days, with rougher play, two periods of 35 minutes each, and no resubstitutions, it was. But conditions of playing now are changed; periods are shorter, play is not so wearing on the men, and resubstitution of men, in the next period is allowed. This makes it possible to play overtime periods in case of a tie. The change may come either in the form of a recommendation from the rules committee, that, before the game, the two teams shall agree to play an overtime period in case of a tie, or in the form of a definite rule to this effect. Some people may say that such a rule as this would be hard on small colleges, which have not a large number of substitutes, but I can't remember a game where there were not at the end some substitutes who had not played. In fact, this is one of the points in favor of the change, that it would allow more men to get into the game.

"Another thing to be considered, in the case of a tie game, is that neither players nor spectators feel as if the game had had a satisfactory outcome. The players feel that if they had had a few more minutes they could have scored again; the spectators feel that they have been cheated out of some of the excitement due them. The institution of an overtime period would cut the number of tie games in half, and would increase the satisfaction of the game to both spectators and players. A play-off is the established thing in baseball, basketball, hockey and other sports, and it should be in football. I hope and believe that the change will come very soon, if not this year."