FOOTBALL.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1671, 28 June 1879, Page 3

FOOTBALL.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS IN THE LAWS OF FOOTBALL. [From “ The Field.”] Each football season yields an abundant crop of arguments for and against the existing laws, and this year has been more than usually productive of complaint. When it is considered that the weather has been against the game, this is scarcely a matter for surprise. Players have been out of practice, and, with one or two brilliant exceptions, the matches have not drawn out any great skill ; while bad play, as we all know, generates disputes. It is more than probable that to this cause may be attributed some of the objections which are now being made ; but there are others also, which demand careful consideration. The societies which regulate the game are of comparatively recent growth —the joint ages of the Rugby Union and Football Association not exceeding twenty years; and although a rough-and-tumble sort of game was previously in existence, there was no recognised laws outside the public schools. Such being the case, those who had the drawing up of the two codes which are now almost universally adopted must not feel disappointed if suggestions the natural outcome of each season’s experience—are continually being made. For some weeks past a correspondence has been carried on in our columns about various points in the Association’s laws of football. In this section of the game, as most of our readers are aware, the use of “hands” is strictly forbidden, except in the case of the goal keeper. Consequently the difficulty arises of the player not knowing what to do with his hands ; and the habit of trying to keep them out of the way causes players to assume attitudes hardly in keeping with one’s ideas of the ifsthe'tical. A great part of the attention which would otherwise be concentrated on the game is thus taken tip by an anxiety to prevent the ball touching the hands. It is all very well, in order to maintain the integrity of the Association game, to exclude handling; but the rule is now unquestionably carried to a most absurd length. Thus a player, in running along to oppose the advance of his rivals, has the hall kicked against his hand ; and for this he being quite a passive party —ho has to suffer the penalty of a “free kick ” to the opposite side. Now, it is obvious that to inflict a punishment for what one might, with every show of reason, say virtually was the fault of the man who kicked the ball against him, is as unfair as it is ridiculous ; moreover, it is against the true spirit of any game. One or two of our correspondents suggest that a middle course should bo struck. To find, however, what would be a middle course, is as difficult as for one unskilled in mathematics to find the true centre of a circle. The Rev. W. B. Money thinks that “the ball should only be touched by the arm down to the wrist.” At the first blush this would seem in some measure to meet the case ; but on consideration it will be found that an clement foreign to the true spirit of football —that the ball ho not knecked or thrown on —would be introduced. As “ Olim Carthaaianus” correctly urges, a clever player would be able to use his forearm almost aa well as hia hand for stopping or turning the ball. In

fact, if Mr Money's suggestions were adopted, we fear that the would soon degenerate into an elbow-am J-arm play which would rob it of the charm which good dribbling affords. Indeed, the Italian game of “Pallone,” in which the hands alone are used, would then be preferable to football. In the absence of any direct law on the subject, the only way we can see out of the difficulty is to invest the umpires with more power. Let the present rule stand as it is, but with a postscript that the umpire be allowed to discriminate between voluntary and involuntary handling ; or, better still, let it be left to him to state when the ball has been handled, and lot no appeal on this point by the players themselves be permitted. This, at any rate, would do away with the incessant shout of “Hands,” which has of late years, even among important clubs, become a downright nuisance, most vexatious to spectators, and to the majority of the players themselves. Undesirable as it is to allow more scope to umpires than is necessary, in this case it might meet the evil. At any rate, we think it well worth the experiment. Another bone of contention is the rule relating to “off-side.” The old school of players complain that as it now stands encouragement is given to what schoolboys term “sneaking.” For the benefit of those of our readers who are not read in the Association game, we may state that Law G enacts that a player is off side unless there are at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal line. Now, it is objected, and with some truth, that as long as a man sees only three opponents between him aAi the goal (and ho is not always particular whether there are even this number) he plays in front of the ball, and is on the look-out for some one of his side to dribble it up to him. This lax rule has no doubt tended to encourage the getting as nearly “ off-side ” as possible—which style of play, if not downright “sneaking,” is so nearly akin to it that it would be merely splitting hairs to attempt a distinction. To obviate this, we think Association players might well adopt the Rugby rule, the substance of which is that every player is put off side when he gets in front of the ball—that is, between it and Irs opponents’ goal. This, although at first it might cause the game to be a little slower than at present, would altogether stop the “ sneaking ” play, would render the umpires’ task more easy, and encourage backing up - a feature in the game which is fast falling into desuetude. The Rugby Union laws are even more provocative of dispute than those of the Association. Never, however, has so bold a proposition been advanced as that made recently at the annual general meeting. At present sixty laws are considered necessary to govern the “ carrying ” game. These, it is argued by Mr A. K. Lutterworth, are in many instances so involved as to bewilder the players, while some of them he thinks altogether unnecessary. A new code has consequently been drawn up, consisting of twenty-eight lawr—less than half the existing number. The chief features which the author claims for these are that they are more precise and clear, give the rules a more logical sequence, and avoid needless repetition, ’That the projectors of this new code have sympathisers among many clubs is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that they obtained a majority of one to appoint a committee to draw up a new code to be “submitted to the October meeting for adoption, rejection, or alteration;” and considering the radical character of the proposal the result certainly shows something in its favour. We think, however, that the new code is too sweeping. Some of the old laws are disregarded altogether, notably that which relates to “punting out.” In the new code, this is not provided for at all, on the ground that the practice has gone out of date. No one, however, knows how soon it may be revived ; and we may remind the supporters of the resolution that it should bo the aim of the legislators of any game t© provide for every contingency that may arise. Another law which it is proposed to abolish is that which requires a player to make his mark in bringing out the ball for a place-kick after a try has been obtained. In this the reformers have certainly common sense on their side. We have always regarded this practice as quite unnecessary. What object does it serve ? The only reason we can think of is that it is supposed to show that the ball is brought straight out but the simple law which provides for this would, we imagine, be found quite sufficient. The new code, while thus lopping off what it believes to be unnecessary, introduces one or two new branches. The most sensible is the rule which provides that, “except in a scrummage it is not lawful for a player to charge against or obstruct any opponent unless such opponent is holding the ball, or such player is himself running at the ball.” This ought to receive the careful attention of every football player, whether belonging to Union or Association. For our own part we should hail with great satisfaction its introduction in both sections of the_ game. The plan of placing at an opponent instead of at the hall is fast on the increase ; and such a practice cannot be too strongly deprecated. To charge a man who is yards away from the ball is, wo maintain, against the spirit of any game, and, in the absence of any prohibitory law, should he discouraged as much as possible. There are other features of the new code, which no doubt will receive the attention they deserve. In few matters are we so conservative as we are in our games. Innovations in the laws of any sport are always regarded with a suspicious eye. In the Rugby game seven years passed, after the establishment of the Union, before anything short of a goal decided the match. Experience, however, taught us that many games were played in which one side had so much the advantage that, although no goal had been kicked, the victory morally belonged to them. This led to the resolution, that in the absence of goals the game should be decided by tries. The integrity of the goal was thus preserved, while the number of drawn battles has been lessened by more than one-half. That this alteration has worked to the satisfaction of the large majority of football players, we think there can be no question. Such being the case, it is only reasonable to suppose that there are yet improvements to be made in the game. Certainly the old laws have received the" sanction of nine years, and any proposal to subvert them must be well considered. Still, in many points they are cumbrous and ill-arranged, while the new code certainly has the merit of being concise. Whether it sacrifices explicitness to brevity is the subject for the careful consideration of those gentlemen appointed to report on the question in October next.