Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)
THE FORWARD PASS
IN FOOTBALL.
BY
ELMER BERRY, B.S., M.P.E.
_Head Coach Football and Baseball, Associate Director
Physical Department, Professor Physiology and Physiology
of Exercise, International Young Men's Christian
Association College, Springfield, Mass._
NEW YORK
A. S. BARNES AND COMPANY
1921
COPYRIGHT, 1921, BY
A. S. BARNES AND COMPANY
THIS WORK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
TO
Dr. J. H. McCurdy
FORMER COACH
SPRINGFIELD Y. M. C. A. COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAMS,
THE MAN WHO EARLIEST DEVELOPED THE FORWARD PASS,
FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS A SUCCESSFUL COACH
AND
A STANDARD-BEARER OF CLEAN SPORT
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
THE COMING OF THE FORWARD PASS 1
CHAPTER II
LEGAL RESTRICTIONS RELATIVE TO THE FORWARD PASS 4
CHAPTER III
THE SPIRAL PASS FROM CENTER 6
CHAPTER IV
THE TECHNIQUE OF FORWARD PASSING 8
CHAPTER V
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SUCCESSFUL FORWARD PASSING GAME 11
CHAPTER VI
SUGGESTIVE FORWARD PASS FORMATIONS AND PLAYS 19
CHAPTER VII
DEFENSE FOR THE FORWARD PASS 23
ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
FIG. 1. PUNT FORMATION PASS 19
FIG. 2. UNDESIRABLE PASS 20
FIG. 3. SPRINGFIELD-CARLISLE INDIAN PASS 21
FIG. 4. SPREAD FORMATION PASS 21
FIG. 5. OPEN DEFENSE 24
THE FORWARD PASS IN FOOTBALL
CHAPTER I.
THE COMING OF THE FORWARD PASS.
INTRODUCTION.
The history of football has been a story of limiting the power of the
offense. The defense has never been restricted, never curtailed, never
hampered, always free to line up as it chose, to go when it pleased
(barring offside), where it pleased and do practically as it pleased.
Always the offense has been too strong, too powerful, and there has been
the necessity of legal restrictions directed toward equalizing the
attack and defense. This was true in general up to the "revolution" when
ten yards and the forward pass came and the "new" game was created.
With the forward pass a great, new, unknown offensive weapon was
provided. The history of the game since the granting of this new method
of attack has again been chiefly a story of limiting the power and
effectiveness of this new offense. To be sure minor changes in the rules
have had other motives and objectives, but taking it by and large the
statement is true to fact.
A brief review of the conditions of the "old" game will recall to
players and spectators of that period the situation, and perhaps help
all of us to better appreciate and understand the changes that brought
the "new" game.
Mass plays predominated. Possession of the ball was vastly important.
Five yards were to be made in three downs. If a man six feet tall could
fall forward his full length three times he would make six yards and
first down. Consequently "fall forward," "get your distance," were
slogans of the old game. End runs, though they might occasionally
succeed brilliantly, were apt to lose precious distance that could not
be regained. If a team won the toss and took the ball there was
practically nothing but a fumble between them and a touchdown, and games
between evenly matched teams were often really decided by the luck of
the toss at the beginning of the game. For with even weight and
particularly with a slight advantage of weight in the line, a safe,
conservative game, straight ahead, slow but sure, tackle to tackle,
hammer the weak spot, was sure to bring the ultimate touchdown. All
sorts of ingenious formations were devised for massing power on the weak
spot. The famous "guards back" of Pennsylvania, the "flying wedge" of
Deland of Harvard, the "turtle back" wedge of others, the rolling mass
on tackle and others of this type will bring a smile of reminiscence to
"old-timers." Men were pushed, dragged and hauled along by their team
mates. Often special straps were attached to the uniform to facilitate
this work, and even to make possible throwing a man bodily, feet first,
over the prostrate lines.
Doubtless many men were severely injured by the splendid co-operative
efforts of their own team mates in such activity. Such a game meant
pounding--pure, unadulterated, gruelling pounding--until the selected
spot, groggy and exhausted, gave way and the opponents swept through to
victory or a substitute leaped in to fill the breach. Men came out of
such games in those days bruised and exhausted, no definite injury but
"dead," "all in." They were worse the next day and still worse the next,
dragging back ready for another gruelling pummelling by the following
Saturday. Internal injuries often developed and an unwarranted large
number of deaths occurred. The game was too rough; dangerously rough;
unnecessarily rough.
Closely linked with this aspect of the "old" game was the moral problem.
Everything was hidden in the mass play. Spectators could see little of
the real game, nothing of the "dirty work." Much of it could not be seen
even by the officials. Publicity is a great deferrent to unfairness. No
man wants the spectators in the stands to see him "pull" any "raw
stuff." Close lines, petty irritations and difficulty of detection
tempted many a man to foul play. We would like to think that the
cleanness and high standard of sportsmanship of the new game is an
indication of rising character and realization of ethical values of
sport. Doubtless it is, but at the same time no small part of it is due
to the openness of the new game; the fact that not only officials but
spectators can see most of what happens. The brutality of the old game,
the deaths and injuries from it, its moral effect, and finally even its
lack of interest to spectators, led to a general outcry against
football. There was a wide demand that it be abolished as an
intercollegiate sport. In 1906 a conference was called in New York for
this purpose. Representatives from approximately seventy colleges
attended.
Fortunately for American youth there were in the conference men of
vision who saw the real need of the hour. These men urged that the
difficulty was not with football but with the _way_ in which it was
allowed to be played; that the college faculties were themselves
responsible for the condition in that they had given no adequate
supervision to athletics; that the game should not be abolished but
revised. They contended that a new game should and could be produced
that would be more open, less dangerous and more interesting than the
old game. Their counsels ultimately prevailed and the conference that
had met to _abolish_ football formed what has become the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, an organization that has done a
wonderful work in raising the standards of sport in our American
colleges. The conference appointed a football rules committee, which,
amalgamating if possible with the old football rules committee, was to
adopt rules that would revise the game of football--that would make it a
_new game_.
What should be done to produce a more open, less dangerous, more
interesting game of football? Remember that the old mass game had
resulted from five yards in three downs. The first fundamental
suggestion was the requirement of _ten_ yards to gain. This could never
be made by mass attack. Consequently the forward pass was given to the
offense--practically the one great occasion of legislation favoring the
offense. In 1912 a fourth down was added. With ten yards in four downs
and the forward pass as the fundamentals the modern game of football has
been developed. Other changes, often important and far-reaching in
influence, followed, but they followed naturally, logically, almost
unavoidably, once the fundamentals, ten yards and the forward pass, had
been accepted.