i 9 o63 Football 



During this year a steadily growing dissatisfaction 

 or rather disgust on the part of the authorities of both 

 the State University and Stanford with so-called 

 American football led to the temporary abolition of 

 that sport at the two institutions. The game had been American 

 developed in the later '8o's from the British Rugby, & amed /- 



, , . . . r / \ i i- rived from 



the two mam alterations consisting or (a) legalizing R ug bywith 

 "off-side play" or "interference," and (b) holding the markfd 

 ball when down. By the latter change, to keep the ball 

 in hand becomes the central purpose, as only through 

 its possession can gains be made. Thus is lost the finest 

 feature, the passing of the ball from hand to hand 

 whenever its holder is in danger of being tackled. 



As to the other modification, Rugby rules prohibit 

 all off-side play that is, a man's getting ahead of 

 the ball when held by his side. In the American game, 

 interference, as it was now called, became a leading 

 factor. This consists of other players of the same team 

 running ahead of the man with the ball and thrusting 

 aside any opponents who block the way. But inter- 

 ference necessitates mass play, and at nearly every 

 "down," all the players engaged are piled in a writhing 

 heap, while those at the bottom often suffer serious in- 

 jury. Hurts in Rugby are not uncommon, to be sure, 

 but they are mainly peripheral, rarely deep-seated. 



The American game, moreover, is in its essence a 

 battle, not sport, and largely devoid of interest 

 except for the colorful, tumultuous partisanship 

 engendered by it. It depends comparatively little on 

 the strength or even skill of individuals but almost 

 entirely on the strategy of the coach. In Rugby each 

 individual player must be alert as well as capable, 

 and the coach is of minor importance; indeed, we soon 

 abolished all paid coaches at Stanford without 



C 193 3 



