Then football as played at present is a game in which there is abundant opportunity for the natural brute to display himself. It is claimed that the game teaches one to control his temper; but I think it just as often gives one an opportunity to vent it on some one else. The remedy proposed for this—to have several umpires—should be repulsive in the extreme to every true sportsman. A game in which the players have to be watched lest they commit murder on each other is simply unfit for a gentleman to play. If that is to be done, why not call in the police at once, as they did in the Yale-Princeton game last fall.
The necessary roughness of the game is considered by some to be an advantage, in that it teaches courage and endurance, and develops the physique of the players. But is not that a sort of "kill or cure" method? Surely one can develop his body without risking his life! A man or a boy has no right to risk life and limb in a game simply because if he escapes injury he will be more healthy than before. I am not exaggerating; a broken limb, a strained back, or some similar injury, is not such a trifling matter as some seem to think. To say the least, it means several weeks taken from our work in life, which is a big price to pay for one afternoon's fun. The development of our strength can be procured in better ways than that. Our bodies were given to us to be used, not abused.
That the game is a fascinating one I would be the last to deny, having played it myself. In its present state, however, I do not see how anyone who candidly and fairly considers the arguments of the opponents of the game can hold to the opinion that it is a fit game for school-boys or collegians, without changes of the most radical nature.
In this letter, the length of which I hope you will pardon, I have said nothing about the other objections to football urged by many, for most of these do not concern the actual game, and will probably correct themselves in time; but I wish to point out that something must be done to rid the game of its objectionable features, and also that it is unjust and discourteous to those who oppose the game from conscientious motives to brand them as weaklings and cowards.
C. S. Wood, R.T.F.
[Mr. Wood brings out many interesting points in his letter regarding football, and though most of his objections to the game refer more to intercollegiate than to interscholastic football, still, to a certain degree, they apply to both. We do not deny that the game is rough and dangerous; but what was meant in the phrase to which Mr. Wood refers was not that people are timid who do not approve of football, but that those people who say that football is the most dangerous game there is, that it is cruel, that it should be stopped by law, that it is worse than the gladiatorial combats of ancient Rome, are either timid or not in their right senses. Football is not as rough as polo; it is not as dangerous as coasting (as coasting is now understood); it is not as dangerous as cross-country riding, and the proportion of injuries in both polo and cross-country riding is far greater than those in football. The facts of the case are that so much has been written and so much said implying that the game is necessarily a villanous game, that many people who know nothing about it, have grown to talk about it, and depreciate it because they fancy it contains injuries which it does not contain. These people have done a great deal to bring a fine game for boys into bad odor, and it is to these, and not to those who understand the game—both its good and its bad points—that the remark referred to was addressed.—The Editor.]