110 yard touchdown run

oldecapecod11 · Post by **oldecapecod11** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:30 pm

ARCHIVE

110 yard touchdown run
Started by luckyshow, Mar 16 2014 10:11 PM

110 yard run

Page 1 of 2

22 replies to this topic

#1 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:11 PM

November 5, 1884 Wyllys Terry 110 yard run
http://tinyurl.com/lxb2t6n

Some places list it as 115 yards. There were no end zones, but you had to take a knee or be tackled behind the goal line, so I guess some listed it from where the ball was snapped back to...?

#2 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 17 March 2014 - 09:19 AM
I imagine that the circumstance was that he fielded a punt or a kick behind his own goal line, and then ran the length of the field. He could have taken a knee in the end zone for a safety (which was what people were expecting, according to the book).

#3 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 17 March 2014 - 09:39 AM

The field was 110 yards long in those days.

#4 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 17 March 2014 - 11:41 AM

Which was true up until 1912. Since the distance from end zone to end zone was never 115 yards, I'm guessing that someone said that the 115 yard run was based on their estimate that the guy was five yards behind the goal line when he took the ball-- certainly too far of a snap (in those days, the center snap wasn't what it is today). I figure that he must have picked up a punt. I found a couple of 1884 newspaper articles about the game, neither of which mentioned the circumstances of the long run.

#5 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
563 posts
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 17 March 2014 - 01:45 PM

When did the "snap" begin to be by hand rather than foot?

#6 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 01:18 PM

oldecapecod 11, on 17 Mar 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
When did the "snap" begin to be by hand rather than foot?

That's a very good question to which I've never been able to find a definitive answer. Certainly the hand snap was legal by 1893, because A. A. Stagg and H. L. Williams wrote, in A Scientific and Practical Treatise on American Football for Schools in Colleges, which was published that year: "It would be well for the center to learn to use either hand in snapping, for it will often prove an advantage" (p. 21). Parke H. Davis and Walter Camp don't mention any rule change involving the snap in their books about the early days of American football, nor is such rule change mentioned in the NCAA Football Rules Committee Chronology of 100 Years 1876 to 1976.

#7 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:09 PM
After my previous post, it occurred to me that David M. Nelson might have mentioned it in The Anatomy of a Game. But all he says is, "by 1890 it was legal to snap the ball with the hands." Since the scrimmage was established in 1880, there's a 10-year window in which the change could have taken place.

#8 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
563 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:29 PM

Oh Poop! I thought there might be five or six guys here that would have that answer in a minute and you, Ralph, were one of the five or six.

Anyway... I felt I was on the trail looking through a slew of Yale archives but reached a point where access was denied. "Eli only!" read the pop-up. Well, Fie! on New Haven.
Perhaps "The Crimson" will have more in-depth detail.

Wasn't there a proposed League that the little school on the banks of the Charles refused to join because of a difference in Rules?
I am quite sure there was.

In your quote "it would be well" it does not go on to say that hand snapping was actually proposed as a change in the Rules.
Maybe it never was and the option was allowable then and the kick back to a member of the backfield would still be allowed today?
Sometimes, what a Rule Book does not state is equally important as what is stated.
We may see that if all this stuff about "words" is individually addressed instead of leaving it to the discretion of the officials as to whether or not it is Taunting or Unsportsmanlike.

One might address the "snap" in the same series that addresses the "fumblerooski" which, of course, was eventually forbidden in the early '90s.

Now, chasing that item, I saw (somewhere) a NYX article that claimed John Heisman was the actual "inventor" (or first to use) the "snap" rather than a kick.
I bet "The Crimson" has a better and more-detailed story?

#9 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:53 PM

rhickok1109, on 18 Mar 2014 - 2:09 PM, said:
After my previous post, it occurred to me that David M. Nelson might have mentioned it in The Anatomy of a Game. But all he says is, "by 1890 it was legal to snap the ball with the hands." Since the scrimmage was established in 1880, there's a 10-year window in which the change could have taken place.
In the "Foot-Ball Rules" from 1883 (believe printed in November of 1882) it says for the scrimmage;

"A scrimmage takes place when the holder of the ball puts it down on the ground and puts it in play by kicking it or snapping it back."

Can only assume 'snapping it back' means with the hands. Since the rules' book was put together in 1882 also assume 'snapping' was the same for the 1882 season.

I've always imagined that you could snap it with the hands as far back as when the scrimmage was established, they basically go hand in hand.

Like This
Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business
Quote
MultiQuote
Report
#10 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler

PFRA Member

1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 03:01 PM
Reaser, on 18 Mar 2014 - 2:53 PM, said:
In the "Foot-Ball Rules" from 1883 (believe printed in November of 1882) it says for the scrimmage;

"A scrimmage takes place when the holder of the ball puts it down on the ground and puts it in play by kicking it or snapping it back."

Can only assume 'snapping it back' means with the hands. Since the rules' book was put together in 1882 also assume 'snapping' was the same for the 1882 season.

I've always imagined that you could snap it with the hands as far back as when the scrimmage was established, they basically go hand in hand.
No, originally "snapping" meant to send the ball backwards by stepping down very hard on one end, kind of like launching a tiddly-wink. That's what it meant in 1880 and possibly, even probably, what it meant in 1882 and 1883.

Like This
Quote
MultiQuote
Report
#11 Reaser
Pro Bowler

PFRA Member

1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 03:38 PM
rhickok1109, on 18 Mar 2014 - 3:01 PM, said:
No, originally "snapping" meant to send the ball backwards by stepping down very hard on one end, kind of like launching a tiddly-wink. That's what it meant in 1880 and possibly, even probably, what it meant in 1882 and 1883.
That's right. Obviously the original question was "When did the snap begin to be by hand rather than foot?"

In the 1890 rules and referee's book the language is the exact same for "scrimmage"; "A scrimmage takes place when the holder of the ball puts it down on the ground, and puts it in play by kicking it or snapping it back."

If "by 1890 it was legal to snap the ball with the hands" but the language is the same? It does say in the 1890 rules' book that "The snapper back and the man opposite him cannot pick out the ball with the hand until it touch a third man" . . .

by 1893 it does say; "by the snapback's kicking the ball or snapping it back, either with his foot, or more commonly with his hand" but the language of the rule for "scrimmage" is the exact same as previous years with no differentiating between snapping it with foot or hand, but if it was "common" by 1893 then one could deduce a snap with the hand was legal prior to then.

Like This
Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business
Quote
MultiQuote
Report
#12 oldecapecod 11
Veteran

PFRA Member

563 posts
0 warning points
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 18 March 2014 - 04:41 PM
I guess I am sorta answering one of my own questions here but the answer is incomplete.

According to the 2011 Rule Book, Section 7-6-3:
"Article 3: Restrictions for Snapper...
"( b ) It is not necessary... but it must be one quick and continuous motion of the hand or hands of the snapper..."

This clearly states that the ball cannot be kicked back from scrimmage.

Now, the trick is to go continually backward in viewing rule books until one finds an earlier restriction or amendment of this Rule.
Then of course, to do it again until the elimination terminology is found. Voila! There it will be.

It seems Reaser is on the right track but going forward which might be better because of the fewer number of years to review. Nice, Matt.

But... we never know...

PS I do apologize for not being able to insert LINKS. They are quite lengthy and I did not earn a Genius Card for typing.
In other threads, I see others are experiencing similar problems ans hopefully this can be resolved soon for all.

Like This
Quote
MultiQuote
Edit
Report
#13 oldecapecod 11
Veteran

PFRA Member

563 posts
0 warning points
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 18 March 2014 - 05:17 PM
Using Wikipedia, I went back to 1999 and found nothing relative to the "snap" so there are only a hundred-odd years to go.
(I think Reaser is on the right track.)

One thing I did find that I feel is very significant for the thread regarding the so-called "N-" word and the hyphenated "M--" word:

2001 Major Rules Changes

"Taunting rules will be strictly enforced."

Obviously, they have not been so the league makes some rules to suit the whims of certain groups and certainly to suit major sponsors.

Opinion: the current proposal is a little flag-waving to keep interest between now and the HoF inductions.
Then the season will be near to hand and vituperative exclamations from playing field or sideline and directed to opponents of officials will continue as they have since the first "F-" word was uttered.

Like This
Quote
MultiQuote
Edit
Report
#14 luckyshow
Starter

Forum Visitors

360 posts
Posted 18 March 2014 - 06:56 PM
I knew the field was 110 yards long, with no end zone. I was only wondering about the additional 5 yards (or 6, since the ball had to be snapped from the field itself so could only be a 108 yard run by today's notions and rules....

For long links: If you can copy and paste them, use .http://www.tinyurl.com
to make them smaller..

#15 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 18 March 2014 - 06:59 PM

I knew the field was 110 yards long, with no end zone. I was only wondering about the additional 5 yards (or 6, since the ball had to be snapped from the field itself so could only be a 108 yard run by today's notions and rules....

For long links: If you can copy and paste them, use .http://www.tinyurl.com
to make them smaller...

#16 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
563 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 18 March 2014 - 08:32 PM

Here's a site that may have part of the answer.

It is, obviously, a Georgia Tech site and refers (in the target article) to the Why and When (approximately) that Heisman, allegedly, designed the "snap."
(If I mess the typing, please let me know and I can e-mail it to you.)

http://www.ramblinwr...man_john00.html

(Amen!)
Matt, you were sooo close...

#17 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 18 March 2014 - 09:05 PM

oldecapecod 11, on 18 Mar 2014 - 8:32 PM, said:
Here's a site that may have part of the answer.
It is, obviously, a Georgia Tech site and refers (in the target article) to the Why and When (approximately) that Heisman, allegedly, designed the "snap."
(If I mess the typing, please let me know and I can e-mail it to you.)
http://www.ramblinwr...man_john00.html
(Amen!)
Matt, you were sooo close...

Nice find. The article says he came up with the center snapping the ball through his legs and through the air. It still wouldn't mean that it was the first snap(s) "by hand." Just would - allegedly - be the first through the legs and through the air.

Edit to add: There's this PFRA link that talks about some history of the "snap"; http://www.profootba...d_Followers.pdf
Includes what I was thinking with the 'center' handing the ball back to the QB from the start/no date given (though preceded by "inch-kicking")
and says that in 1889 the Yale center bounced the ball back between his legs . . .

#18 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
563 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 19 March 2014 - 11:20 AM

Reaser
"... There's this PFRA link..."

Wow! Right in our own back yard. Imagine that? For sure, you were on the right end of the chronological scale.

A touch of irony...
It should be noted that the Historian / Athlete / Coach / Attorney Parke H. Davis was in no way affiliated with the company that was his contemporary, Parke-Davis.
Among the products Parke-Davis pioneered and sold was a "Parke Davis Drug Injection Kit" specifically designed for cocaine use and they actively marketed a product known as "Cannabis Americana" - both of which, if sold today, would be on the shopping lists of many players who followed in the footsteps of Parke H. Davis and his hero, Walter Camp.

http://cocaine.org/p...davis-works.htm
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Parke-Davis
(PS One of the things that Wikipedia does right is to provide sufficient links and / or references to cross-check its data.)

#19 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 19 March 2014 - 01:52 PM

I strongly suspect that there was never a rule change making the hand snap legal. In this era, I bet some center began doing it, the opposing team objected, the referee ruled that it was all right to do, and then other centers began doing it.

Referees in that era had great power over the rules and their on-field rulings were often tacitly accepted as law. For example, when some unknown (at least to me) player first "kicked off" but nudging the ball slightly forward with his foot and then kicking it back to a teammate, his opponents claimed that it was illegal because he was putting himself offside, under the rules of the day. However, the referee ruled that for a player to kick the ball behind him was not the same as running ahead of the ball and therefore it was a legal act.

Similarly, in a game which Walter Camp himself officiated, Princeton had two players running alongside the ballcarrier to make it difficult for defenders to get to him. The opposing team (if memory serves, it was actually Camp's alma mater, Yale) objected that those two players violated the rule against interference. However, Camp ruled that it was legal, because they weren't directly in front of the runner. At some point, the interference rule was removed from the books, but that was long after it had been done away with in spirit.

#20 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:45 PM

I know this hardly may mean anything, but in the Marx Brothers' movie "Horsefeathers (A great movie to see football plays of that period in the newsreel footage used), Chico snaps the ball back not between his legs but underhand from around his side, similar to a way I can throw the frisbee with a wrist snap side arm throw from behind.. I always wondered if this was a secondary way it might have been done...

Page 1 of 2

oldecapecod 11

110 yard touchdown run
Started by luckyshow, Mar 16 2014 10:11 PM

110 yard run

Page 2 of 2

22 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_BigMck_*
Guests
Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:40 AM

rhickok1109, on 19 Mar 2014 - 1:52 PM, said:
Similarly, in a game which Walter Camp himself officiated, Princeton had two players running alongside the ballcarrier to make it difficult for defenders to get to him. The opposing team (if memory serves, it was actually Camp's alma mater, Yale) objected that those two players violated the rule against interference. However, Camp ruled that it was legal, because they weren't directly in front of the runner. At some point, the interference rule was removed from the books, but that was long after it had been done away with in spirit.

What you are saying above sounds like blocking to me. Was this illegal at the time?

#22 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 21 March 2014 - 09:41 AM

In rugby league, which is what American and Canadian football evolved from, it's illegal for the other players to interfere with the defending team, or for the ballcarrier "to run behind his team to gain an advantage". If you were about to be stopped in your progress, you lateraled the ball to the people behind you. Once the scrimmage system began, of course, the ball carrier was automatically behind a majority of his teammates after the snap, so it would have been hard to keep that "no running behind your team" rule.

#23 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 21 March 2014 - 05:35 PM

Mark L. Ford, on 21 Mar 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:
In rugby league, which is what American and Canadian football evolved from, it's illegal for the other players to interfere with the defending team, or for the ballcarrier "to run behind his team to gain an advantage".
Yes, thank you, I probably should have explained that in my post. Upon further research, I see that my account wasn't accurate.

The incident I referred to occurred in the 1879 Harvard-Princeton game and Walter Camp, as referee, far from ruling that it was legal, warned the Princeton captain that having players running alongside the ballcarrier was against the rules.

Later that year, however, Yale used exactly the same tactic. Since Camp was playing for Yale, it's almost certain that he introduced the idea to the team, so he must have changed his mind about it's legality. Either that or he was a major hypocrite.

This information comes from David M. Nelson's Anatomy of a Game. Nelson also notes, "Offensive blocking came to the game through the failure of officials to enforce the blocking violations and not by a rule change," which was the point I was trying to make.

Page 2 of 2