The Princetoman thus comments on the proposed changes in the foot-ball rules. "There can be no doubt that there is a growing public sentiment against the present style of play. People do not attend games in as large numbers nowadays as they used to do. They are tired seeing a prize fight between ruffians, when they expect to see a spirited game between gentleman. And, in our opinion, there will be no inter-collegiate foot-ball three or four years hence unless referees are secured who have the pluck and disposition to enforce the rules against players who are willing to break them. Undoubtedly it would be a safeguard to have the game refereed by an alumnus, who may be supposed to be removed from sympathy with the present mode of play. We doubt, though the advisability of changing rule 19 so that the referee can disqualify a player without a warning. Frequently, without meaning any harm, a player may be off-side or tackle a man foul, and yet the referee be unable to say whether or not it was an intentional violation of the rule. Under the present rule a player in such circumstances would probably receive a warning. We think if the present rule, disqualifying a man after three warnings, was rigidly enforced, it would answer all the purposes of a gentlemanly game.
The change suggested in rule 28 is unique, and should not be hastily decided one way or the other. At first thought it would seem to be an excellent way of forcing a team to play fairly whether it is disposed to do so or not. For while there is often so little difference between a player and a substitute that a team would be willing to lose the one and bring in the other in order to gain some desirable point, on the other hand, a team would under no circumstances be willing to lose a man if no one were allowed to take his place.
It is our earnest hope that the outcome of all this agitation by the Harvard Faculty will be to elevate the game to its rightful position as a manly and noble sport."