How am I supposed to get any sleep watching your videos till 5 in the morning? No problem - I am retired and don't have to be anywhere. You have addressed two of my primary interests - history and football. A few years ago I decided I would write a book about the history of half time shows at Christian colleges, which would cover football, history music and religion. I was actually in a halftime show once - Choir Day at Ouachita Baptist University, 1972. We sang How Great Thou Art and Amazing Grace. Then the opposing teams band came out - Bishop College, HBCU from Dallas - dancing and bogeying and shaking their booty and playing jazzy music. quite a contrast. Anyway, your videos are great. Keep up the good work.
I am LOVING this series. Although retired, I still need to break away from my phone to take advantage of today's weather and get a bike ride in. A man needs priorities.
13:40 Why "put in play" rather than "snapped"? Because the team entitled to play the ball had the option of the kick forward in scrimmage. That is, instead of snapping the ball back, they could kick it forward.
So, to use modern terms, you are saying that the center could somehow punt the ball instead of snap it? That seems impossible with a defender standing in front of you.
@@mikebronicki8264 Not punt, but place-kick it without a hold. Remember that at that time the ball didn't have to be laid down on the spot by an official; in most cases the ball was allowed to be put in play again as soon as it became dead. Regardless of how the ball was put on the ground, instead of snapping the ball, a player of the side entitled to do so would just kick it forward as it lay there. The defense may not have gotten their players in position yet, or if they had some players there, there might've yet been space to kick the ball thru, though it was only a surprise play that wasn't much use against a prepared defense, especially since the ball still had to move a specified (I forgot how far) distance forward before the offense was eligible to recover it. Heeling the ball backward became illegal some time in the 1890s, but the "kick forward in scrimmage" remained legal until well into the 20th Century.
With no linesman in position to see it in that 1895 game, it's quite plausible that no official had a good enough viewing angle to rule that pass as having gone forward.
The loss of ball provision for an incomplete forward pass was not so extreme from their point of view, since that was what happened previously when a ball was thrown forward. All the new rule of 1906 did was provide an exception to the rugby rule on throws-forward, saying that if an eligible teammate touched it before it hit the ground, the usual loss of ball would not apply. Note that catching the ball as not necessary; touching the pass was completing it. But then of course if you didn't catch it, it was like a fumble.
You misunderstood what the article was saying Princeton was doing against the forward pass of the Indian school. What Princeton latched onto was that no matter how many or which penalties are performed by either offense or defense if an illegal forward pass occurs that is the only penalty enforced. The lack of pass interference wasn't the loophole. Princeton was deliberately committing the penalty of holding because there wasn't off setting penalties. They'll get called for holding but if the ball hits the ground untouched on a forward pass thats the one enforced
I wrote the comment on your last video too soon. Was there a situation during the time when the defense could tackle receivers where an offensive player ran directly out of bounds, behind the people standing on the sidelines and back in downfield to avoid the defense? If so, is this the reason for making it illegal to step out of bounds and be the first to touch the football?
Yes, that's the reason. Receivers used to run behind the bench, the peanut vendor, etc. and re-emerge. There are rules against that sort of thing in soccer and basketball now too.
@@mikebronicki8264 I'm sure he'll acknowledge he got that wrong. It's easy to misread the rule, because it was written only as to which players were *not* eligible to receive a forward pass: players on the line anywhere except its ends. Notice that this rule also made it necessary to limit the number of players in the backfield to 4, or require a minimum of 7 on the line, else the offense could have more than 6 eligible receivers. Canadian football didn't require 7 on the line on all snaps until the late 1960s; they required at least 5 on the line unless a forward pass was thrown that down, in which case they required 7.
How am I supposed to get any sleep watching your videos till 5 in the morning? No problem - I am retired and don't have to be anywhere. You have addressed two of my primary interests - history and football. A few years ago I decided I would write a book about the history of half time shows at Christian colleges, which would cover football, history music and religion. I was actually in a halftime show once - Choir Day at Ouachita Baptist University, 1972. We sang How Great Thou Art and Amazing Grace. Then the opposing teams band came out - Bishop College, HBCU from Dallas - dancing and bogeying and shaking their booty and playing jazzy music. quite a contrast. Anyway, your videos are great. Keep up the good work.
Haha, I made a similar comment on an early video. LIke you, being retired helps.
I am LOVING this series. Although retired, I still need to break away from my phone to take advantage of today's weather and get a bike ride in. A man needs priorities.
Brighten the Corner played by a marching band! Who couldn’t get excited about that?
I really enjoy your videos. Very informative.
Thank you!
13:40 Why "put in play" rather than "snapped"? Because the team entitled to play the ball had the option of the kick forward in scrimmage. That is, instead of snapping the ball back, they could kick it forward.
So, to use modern terms, you are saying that the center could somehow punt the ball instead of snap it? That seems impossible with a defender standing in front of you.
@@mikebronicki8264 Not punt, but place-kick it without a hold. Remember that at that time the ball didn't have to be laid down on the spot by an official; in most cases the ball was allowed to be put in play again as soon as it became dead. Regardless of how the ball was put on the ground, instead of snapping the ball, a player of the side entitled to do so would just kick it forward as it lay there. The defense may not have gotten their players in position yet, or if they had some players there, there might've yet been space to kick the ball thru, though it was only a surprise play that wasn't much use against a prepared defense, especially since the ball still had to move a specified (I forgot how far) distance forward before the offense was eligible to recover it.
Heeling the ball backward became illegal some time in the 1890s, but the "kick forward in scrimmage" remained legal until well into the 20th Century.
With no linesman in position to see it in that 1895 game, it's quite plausible that no official had a good enough viewing angle to rule that pass as having gone forward.
The loss of ball provision for an incomplete forward pass was not so extreme from their point of view, since that was what happened previously when a ball was thrown forward. All the new rule of 1906 did was provide an exception to the rugby rule on throws-forward, saying that if an eligible teammate touched it before it hit the ground, the usual loss of ball would not apply. Note that catching the ball as not necessary; touching the pass was completing it. But then of course if you didn't catch it, it was like a fumble.
Well researched stuff! Love the videos!
I would love to have Bill & Ted's time machine to bring back Stagg, Camp, Warner and others to see just what the game has become.
You misunderstood what the article was saying Princeton was doing against the forward pass of the Indian school. What Princeton latched onto was that no matter how many or which penalties are performed by either offense or defense if an illegal forward pass occurs that is the only penalty enforced. The lack of pass interference wasn't the loophole. Princeton was deliberately committing the penalty of holding because there wasn't off setting penalties. They'll get called for holding but if the ball hits the ground untouched on a forward pass thats the one enforced
I wrote the comment on your last video too soon. Was there a situation during the time when the defense could tackle receivers where an offensive player ran directly out of bounds, behind the people standing on the sidelines and back in downfield to avoid the defense? If so, is this the reason for making it illegal to step out of bounds and be the first to touch the football?
Yes, that's the reason. Receivers used to run behind the bench, the peanut vendor, etc. and re-emerge. There are rules against that sort of thing in soccer and basketball now too.
I'm sorta curious how much like Mass Plays stuff like the Tush Push is
11:24 No, then as now, the backs were eligible receivers too.
Not as originally legalized by the 1906 rules change, according to Corn Nation. Only the 2 Ends were allowed to catch a pass.
@@mikebronicki8264 I'm sure he'll acknowledge he got that wrong. It's easy to misread the rule, because it was written only as to which players were *not* eligible to receive a forward pass: players on the line anywhere except its ends. Notice that this rule also made it necessary to limit the number of players in the backfield to 4, or require a minimum of 7 on the line, else the offense could have more than 6 eligible receivers. Canadian football didn't require 7 on the line on all snaps until the late 1960s; they required at least 5 on the line unless a forward pass was thrown that down, in which case they required 7.