St Johns College - Yearbook (Annapolis, MD)

Page 149 text:

,x .lg Q i S F '.'J'K'9'r-w- 1-,rv::-rfr '- . S A ,Pk -,.....:r.-2.5: ...if-:L 1 .1 V v,gQf.,A it and one of our men fell on the ball. At this point began the discussion which caused us to leave the field and forfeit Why we left the field I will not attempt to discuss, but will quote to you Prof. Cain's views concerning the affair, and the facts that led up to it. That St. John's should leave the field and refuse to finish a game in any branch of sport is an extraordinary occurrence, indeed, more than fifteen years of close relationship to her athletic teams does not enable me to recall another instance- Naturally and properly, some of the alumni have asked for a statement of the circumstances that infiuenced the captain of the football team when he refused to finish the Hopkins game and left the field under protest against the referee's decisions, and it is solely for the purpose of answering these rightful inquiries that this statement is made. While we are not indifferent to news- paper comments and criticism, we have in this matter pursued our long-established policy of refraining from controversies in the public press. We aim to be manly and sportsman- like with all our opponents, and having taken a stand for what we believe to be right, we abide by all the consequences of our action. In this case, however, so unusual as it is, an explanation is due the alumni and friends of the College. I Much might be said as to the difficulty of agreeing upon officials and the conduct of certain individuals during the game, but with these matters, as with the merits of the teams, this article has nothing to do. Our refusal to finish the game rested solely on the incor- rectness of the referee's rulings. The first display of incompetency occurred when we attempted to play what we call our close formation. This play is used by some of the best teams in the country, having been first used, I believe at Princeton. We have played it for three years against every team we have faced, and never before has it been questioned. VVe played it repeatedly in our game against the Navy team, with the chairman of the rules committee as umpire. He saw nothing about it that is contrary to the rules. In the I-Iopkins game, when the signal was given to close up, the referee informed the captain of our team that we could not use .that play. The rule book was produced, the umpire gave his judgment that the play was perfectly proper, Mr. Spates protested, but all in vain- After all this, the referee announced so as to be heard on the side lines, If you play that play I'l1 take the ball away from you. Now, the point to be particularly noted about this ruling is that the matter of formations, as, indeed, of the positions of the players in general, is one over which the referee has nojurisdiction whatever. The rules say that the 'LHI1-Pi7'6' is the judge of the players. Moreover, in the discussion the referee claimed that the formation was in violation of Rule 18. But, under Duties of Officialsf' Rule 29, II, the enforcement of Rule I8 is distinctly and specifically given as a duty and responsibility of the 1fL74fIfP1:7'6. For the referee to interfere in the matter was an arbitrary assumption of authority, in plain violation of the rules. It is taking a charitable view to say that his judgment was faulty. But that, no doubt, is the view Captain Spates took, for though the play was the most effective one we had at that stage of the game, he dropped it and con- tinued to play, rather than expose his college to the risk of unfavorable criticism. If we have any regret in connection with our action on that day, it is that we did not then and there refuse to go on- There could have been no more justifiable ground for a refusal to play. Later in the game I-Iopkins had worked the ball down inside our five-yard line. In their anxiety as to the outcome, many of the sympathizers of each team had gathered around the players. In response to an inquiry as to the number of the down, the referee was heard 135 - , ,,. I

Page 148 text:

rr 1, l Q, is VT tif V iw L l w i v ai Lt The Hopkins Game ' as URELY no one who saw that game can fail to acknowledge that we dec dedly outplay ed Hopkins even though we were compelled to forfeit - 7 7 A n J . just a few minutes before the referee's whistle would have ended the struggle. Encouraged by a band of rooters which considerably outnumbered those of our opponents, our men went into the game with a snap that simply carried Hopkins off her feet. In the first half, Hopkins kicked off and downed us on our 20-yard line. Rain- soaked and mud-bedaubed, we worked the ball from here to the Hopkins 20-yard line, where we lost it on a fumble. Fumble followed fumble in rapid succession, and the ball continued to pass first from our possession into Hopkins', and vice versa, until Time was called, when the ball was on Hopkins, 20-yard line and in our possession. Amid prolonged cheering and waving of liags, St. john's ran upon the rain- soaked lield again for the second half. Randall kicked off and regained the ball on a fumble on Hopkins' 30-yard line. We seemed, however, unable to take advantage o-f this excellent chance for a touchdown, for we lost the ball on downs. Hopkins, having the heavier team, now shoved us over the slippery ground, but they soon lost the ball near the center of the field on an off-side play. Again we worked the ball down the field, but it was apparent that we were weakening under the -'superior weight of the Hopkins men. We were soon compelled to give up the ball again and our opponents worked it to our 25-yard line. Although they lost it here on an off-play, we were forced to kick, downing Hopkins in the center of the field. Here we held them for downs, bue we were again forced to try a kick. ,Randall fumbled the toss and was downed. Again we tried a kick and downed Hopkins on tfieir 30-yard line. From this point Hopkins worked the ball to our 5-yard line, but again lost it on an off-side play. Again we kicked, but this time the ball was ' Jlocked and downed on our I2-y8.1'Cl line, a Hopkins' man capturing the ball. VVe now really held them for downs, but the referee called First downf, so we l iad to submit to another series of rushes. The critical moment had arrived-five minutes to play and the ball on our two yard line. Hopkins centre started to pass the ball, but the slippery ground seemed to hold g . -..YV .4 134 2 '

Page 150 text:

A H ..,, ,..----.--. -- - to announce, Second down, a touchdown to make. The latter expression struck me at the moment as an unfortunate one to use, but a glance at the position of the linesmen showed that in two more attempts the Hopkins team had to carry the ball across the goal line or surrender it to St. Iohn's. They took their two trials and failed to carry the ball over, in fact, failed to make any gain. None of the onlookers seemed to question the fact that four downs had been played, but when Captain Spates claimed the ball the ref- eree informed him that it was Hopkins' ball on the third down. Here again protest and argument were without avail, and again St. John's gave way. Another down played, and again Hopkins failed to gain. During the progress of the play the referee blew no whistle to indicate that anything was wrong, but after the play had been made and stopped by St. Iohnls, he approached the umpire and asked, Are you going to declare off-side play? The umpire said there was no off-side play. Then, sai-d the referee, I call interference with the .center,', and he proceeded to allow half the remain- ing distance to the goal line and give the ball to Hopkinsfor a first down- This ruling Captain Spates again protested, and asked the referee to get the judgment of the other officials. The umpire, the two linesmen and the two timekeepers were called upon for testimony, but none of them could say that he saw off-side play, interference with the center, or anything improper or irregular in the play. The referee, however, refused to change his decision, and after waiting a reasonable time for him to reconsider his action, Captain Spates called the team from the field. There was no opportunity for honest difference of judgment as to the first error. Had there been, it would have been the duty of those concerned to submit to the judgment of the referee- But every one who saw the plays, and who could count four, knew that the referee was wrong as to the number of downs. To decide the probable right or wrong in the conflicting contentions as to the second point in dispute-interference with the center-the position of the observers and the sur- rounding circumstances must be taken into consideration. Spates is a guard, and, of course, stood within half a yard of the ball. The writer stood directly behind the center, not more than seven yards off, and, therefore, had an unobstructed view of the ball and the men who could possibly interfere with the center. The referee stood to one side, not less than twelve yards from the ball, his view being obstructed by half the players on each team. It was after 5 olclock, or about 20 minutes after sunclfown, on a very rainy day. I From the position of the referee he could not see what was going on. At best his decision rested on guesswork. I say most emphatically there was no off-side play, no inter- ference with the center. Had there been the slightest doubt about the fairness' of the play, I would have advised Captain Spates to accept the judgment and continue to play. But know- ing that he had yielded twice, when the referee was clearly and absolutely wrong, I could not counsel him to do otherwise than he did. Had he finished the game he would have been in the position either of a man who did not know his rights, or knowing, had not the courage to stand for them. It was one thing to let the game go by default and under protest against decisions wrong both as to fact and rule, it was quite a different matter to lose the game by letting the referee continue to give the ball to Hopkins until they could carry it over under the pretence of regularity. Captain Spates chose the former course. It should be added that his action meets with the approbation of every one connected with the college- 'While we have such men to lead our athletic teams, St. Iohn's reputation for sportsman- ship is entirely safe. 1 3,6 1..- -- - ..su.ag-.,.............wa 1-r:':,.: gzdgr. 'f