The point I was leading up to is that the disabled Captain of the Hopkins team is reported to have acted as umpire, his place on the field being taken by a player named Jewett. The report of the game as printed in a New Haven paper goes on to say: "Neither side scored until just before the whistle was blown for the end of the first half, when Acting Captain Jewett of Hopkins secured the ball and rushed over the line. Cheshire claimed time was up, and, according to their version, they were supported by the Hopkins Captain as umpire. Acting Captain Jewett, however, decided to quit, and the game stopped. Then followed trouble." There it is in a nutshell. Jewett decided to quit, because he was not satisfied with the umpire's decision. And the umpire was the actual Captain of the team which Jewett had charge of and which proved a "quitter." If there is anything a sportsman justly despises it is a "quitter."
But the Hopkins Grammar players are not the only ones subject to the edifying affection commonly called sulks. Last week the French-American College and the High-School teams of Springfield, Massachusetts, met in a "friendly contest." They were going to play for "sport," of course. (Sport for sport's sake, you remember.) Well, it seems that two instructors, Mr. Turner and Mr. McGregor, officiated as referee and umpire. There was an off-side play, and both officials so agreed and decided. Then the College team refused to play any further, and became quitters. What I cannot understand in all this is why any team of presumably sensible young men, after having agreed to abide by the decisions of gentlemen in whom at the time they must have had confidence, should refuse to abide by a decision as soon as one is made against them. I have said so many times in the few lines that I have written this week that this or that was unsportsmanlike, that I think we had better drop this painful subject now and turn to something more cheerful.
It would seem from the score of the recent game between Hartford High and Hillhouse High, that the former had had a hard time of it. In reality, the victory was an easy one. Hartford caught the ball at the kick-off, and by a series of carefully planned plays forced it down the field and over Hillhouse's line for a touch-down. These were the only points scored, although the ball was in Hillhouse's territory during most of the game. Play was carried on in a pouring rain, which made runs around the end almost impossible. Most of the gains on both sides were obtained by sending the runners between guard and centre or guard and tackle. New Haven's team was as good as could be gotten out of the school, but it was considerably inferior in ability and weight to Hartford's. Smith and Erickson were weak at the end positions, but not much worse than their opponents; but the tackles, Collet and Russell, were strong.
The Hartford centre was superior to that of the New Haven team, and had little trouble in making holes for the backs to plunge through. McQuade at full-back did fully as well as Hartford's man Luce, who is looked upon as the crack player in his position in the league, and he was responsible for a number of the advances made by his side. On the whole, the weather conditions were such as to make a just criticism of the work of either team impossible, because no doubt most of the fumbling and poor tackling was due to the slippery condition of things in general. There was a good deal of ragged playing, however, that cannot be excused even on the ground of rain and mud, and Hillhouse especially needs to brace up and give attention to interference, and to the breaking up of interference.
Hartford put up a good game a few days later against the Yale Freshmen, who defeated the school team 20 to 0. There was no scoring done in the first half except a safety by Hartford. In the second the Yale men sent eight fresh players into the field, and from then on Hartford had little show of winning. I think if the same teams had played from start to finish, there would have been a different story to tell at the end of the game.
Parental interference in boys' sports is always to be regretted, especially if the sport is being carried on under rules and conditions which experience has shown to be good ones, and under the supervision of older persons, who are, as trainers and coaches, just as anxious for the young player's health and condition as the most nervous mother could be. If a boy is sent to a private school it is fair to presume that his parents have confidence in the judgment and integrity of the principal and instructors, regardless of their intellectual and scholarly attainments or of their pedagogical talents. Therefore, if these professors, in whom the parents have expressed their confidence by confiding their sons to their care, approve of athletic sports in general, and of football at this season in particular, the parents, being less able to judge of the merits of the question, should allow their boys to take part in these sports until they have good reason to discredit the instructor's judgment. Parents, as I have frequently said before, are too often influenced by exaggerated reports of football accidents occurring to untrained players taking part in unscientific contests.
There is no danger to a healthy boy who plays football under the supervision of a competent coach. For this reason it is my opinion—and I am sure the opinion of all lovers of football—that the parents of the Barnard School boys who forbade their sons to take part in the game, have made a mistake which they will doubtless recognize when they become more familiar with the sport. The action of these parents has resulted in the disbanding of the first team at Barnard. This eleven had already won several victories, and the players were looking forward to earning a creditable position in the league, but now all this has been given up.
But the true spirit of sportsmanship has not by any means been extinguished in the school. The players with the objecting parents have retired, and the first team has fallen to pieces, but the fragments have been collected by an energetic captain, and new men have been found who practise on the gridiron daily; not with the view of getting into shape for this season, but to train players for next year. This is true sportsmanship. These boys are going into sport for sport's sake, and should be encouraged. They are of the stuff that winning teams are made of.
W. L. Dubois, Urbana, Ohio.—You might lighten your racket by scraping it with glass or sand-paper, or by hollowing out the handle. Don't soak it. You will find it more satisfactory in the end to buy another, or to trade your own off for a lighter one.
K. M. Towner, Asbury Park, New Jersey.—A correct diagram of Defender is not to be had. Some of the yachting papers published approximately correct diagrams at the time of the recent races. There will be an article on the construction of model yachts in the volume of Harper's Round Table, which begins with this issue.
The Graduate.