BEALE FLAYS FOOTBALL HEADS FOR FUMBLING PENALTY

The following article was received by the Crimson accompanied by the following letter form Mr. Beale:

"Enclosed is a seriously considered criticism of football. I think it would help the game if you would publish it and advise all college papers to copy. No relief can be obtained through the Rules Committee. No active football man can be brought to think in regard to fumbling, except that it is too great a crime to escape with anything but the severest penalty."

Mr. Beale's football record when in the University qualifies him to speak on this subject. In 1893 he played against Yale at Springfield, in 1895 against the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1896 against Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.

The football solons since 1879 have done their worst to take the joy out of football. Their solid-ivory reasoning has been responsible for the following direct results:

First: They have eliminated the free rushing and passing which was and theoretically still should be its fundamental play, replacing it with miserable substitutes.

During the eighties and nineties they passed rules requiring pushing duels between opposing linesmen to determine whether the offence could provide a human slide on which to project the man with the ball for 1 and 67-100 yards on each down; or whether on the other hand the defence could upset this human slide and turn it into a human wall against which the alleged runner would be hurled in vain by his team-mates. The result of the plays would have been exactly the same if the runner was on wheels.

This game entailed an extraordinary amount of injuries form crushing and grinding such as broken ribs, collarbones, legs and telescoped vertebrae, broken necks and backs.

When the crushing and grinding machinery, under paid coaches, became so highly developed that it pulverized the players without any appreciable movement of the ball, many college faculties abolished the game and on those of Harvard, Yale and Princeton were many in favor of putting an end to its misery. The rule-makers were forced to do something and reluctantly introduced the forward pass, and certain restrictions as to interference.

Forward Pass Brings Other Harms

The crushing and grinding machinery was legislated out of existence but in its place was set up equally dangerous and diabolical flying mass collisions. On account of the forward pass threat, the defence must keep almost half the team five or ten yards back of the scrimmage line. This rear guard for a pass, in case the basketball heave is not used, must quickly form a rushing defensive interference, and meet the offensive interference at the scrimmage line. Result a young Freshman-Sophomore rush, long ago tabooed for brutality! Result in rushing also nothing, for like two equally heavy express trains colliding head on they crash and pile up with no gain.

Meanwhile the forwards are dashing into opponents hoping by judicious hammering of solar-plexes, ribs, or chin, gradually to make their opponent so groggy or disabled that the teams will not be equal and that ground may be gained over a worn-out line or a weaker substitute one.

Injuries in games and practice are as dangerous, frequent and permanent as in the crushing and grinding game.

Game of Coaches, Not Players

Second:--The rule-makers have established a game so stereotyped and restricted that every move is foreordained by the professional coach. He is supreme and the movements of the gladiators are dictated by him. It is a professional coaches' game and not the players' game.

Third: Resulting from this domination of paid coaches is the difficulty of changing the game and giving it back to the players, for the rule-makers either are those same coaches or represent the groups or committees who engaged them, and who rely on their judgment. Therefore they will make no rules which would spoil their plays or "system" as it is called, which is their stock in trade.

To sum up the present consequences of the idiotic rules:--Instead of football's fundamental feature, rushing and passing, being used to gain ground, we have forward passing. Games may be won only by forward passing, or fumbling. The game requires masses of opposing players to meet at a point running at full speed in opposite directions and is therefore dangerous to life and limb. The game has become commercialized and so dominated by paid coaches that they oppose any changes which might interfere with their vested interests.

Remedy; Abolish Penalty for Fumbling

The whole trouble is the extreme, illogical, vicious penalty for fumbling. This penalty, like a cancer, has catein the life (rushing) out of the game.

Why is it that the defence can mass at full speed against all running plays? Because the man with the ball can not pass it for fear of fumbling. Why can not rushes get started? For the same reason.

Why can the coaches direct every move on offence and defence? For the same reason, making the game so stereotyped with one rusher, one rush, at one point in the line.

Why do the players play? Because they know no other game, and what is left of the game is beter than nothing.

Let Fumble be Only Loss of Down

What is, then, the logical and sufficient penalty for fumbling? Fumbling, divesting it of the arbitrary terrors attached to it by the aforesaid Solons in 1879, is a simple misplay and logically the only penalty is what naturally results form the misplay. By a fumble the chance to rush is practically lost or ended, but the hall is not dead and the opponents may capture it and rush with it, even making a score. Anything that may happen on the play in which the fumble occurs should stand as the result of it.

The crime of football is the rule giving the ball to the opponents if recovered by them, for the next rush. The ball has been stopped and that is all; the fumble is no reason for interrupting the series of downs, or innings. The abject fear of a fumble interrupting the series is the reason for all the bad features of play enumerated, and for almost all injuries.

Remedy Simple and Easy

Without changing a single rule of actual play the game could be emancipated by the following simple provision:--"The series of downs shall not be interrupted by a fumble recovered by the other side, unless exhausted by the rush; but either side fumbling shall not be allowed to gain ground thereby. The punt could be left as it is, giving enough chance for misplay.

With some such rule improvement in play and rules would be immediate and continuous. Instead of one rusher taking the ball for a hopeless plunge he would be disgraced to be tackled before passing it. Coaches would work out a multitude of outlets for passing combinations using all line men to carry the ball. This would put an end to the brutal line duels, as all line men would be needed both on offence and defence to follow the ball. It would be an infinitely more elastic game, yet with the old American idea of team play and signals; the same game with the lid off. Coaches have tried to raise the lid, as did Hinckey, and failed on account of the fumbling bug-bear.

Effect of Reform Certain

I am not guessing as to the effect of the proposed rule. In 1879 with the open scrimmage and no penalty for fumbling, Parke Davis, Esq., in his book on American Football, describes the play as most scientific. In passing, when about to be tackled the players developed remarkable skill, throwing and catching with the speed and accuracy of baseball and forming backing up groups very cleverly.

I can, however, predict a change in the forward pass rule to permit no passes beyond the line of scrimmage but to allow any number behind it without restriction as to receivers or passers, and every pass to be played whether caught or not.

Is not the present forward pass ridiculous with its arbitrary rules and specially charmed men! But, especially, note that, although the basketball heave is against the theory of football, even if the receiver fumbles, his side does not lose the ball on the next play. It has been accorded almost precisely the helpful rule denied to straight rushing.

Such Penalties Would Spoil Any Game

How easy it would be to kill any game by placing penalties on mere errors of execution. Suppose a netted ball in tennis should lose the game, the fine free dashing close-to-the-net play would be killed. If an error in baseball should give the batters an additional, inning, the hard chances (which are the joy of players and spectators) would be avoided. No game should have rules that arbitrarily penalize good play out of existence, and football has just that feature.

I have always maintained the above ideas about the fumble since 1896 when I ceased to play on Harvard teams. I had them in my system after four years at quarterback in college which is the best position in which to get the spirit and "feel' of the game.

In football's darkest days two out of five of a special sub-committee of the rules committee favored the idea.

Lest I be sued for libel I will admit that the rules committee, whoever they may be, and football men in general, have surpassing intelligence, except in football. For them their football world is flat and they want it flat