Not a Princeton Scandal

The charges against Princeton of "dirty" football made against the teams from 1919 to 1926 inclusive by Wynant D. Hubbard is not only that Harvard players were injured by rough play in violation of the rules, but also that it was the deliberate policy of Princeton coaching to cripple "pivotal" players. The former Harvard tackle posts Princeton as guilty of "dirty" foot ball in two games in which he took part. He makes ten "accusations" against the Princeton "football system." In most of them he names Harvard players who, he says, had a leg broken, or knees "badly twisted," or a wrist dislocated, or were otherwise disabled by a foul play. One of his charges is that "Princeton tackles, coming in under kicks, often do not try to block punts, but with high, powerful knee action rough up the defending halfback". Much of Hubbard's evidence must be hearsay. When the players mentioned by him as disabled by Princeton tactics were interviewed they fall refused to deny or confirm the statements made."

William J. Bingham, director of athletics at Harvard, had nothing to say, and Major F. W. Moore, Treasurer of the Athletic Association was silent. No Harvard men gave any support to Hubbard's charges. But the judges and referees who officiated at the games were soon heard from. W. R. Okeson of Lehigh, referee and field judge, testifies that the games "were just good, clean contests between a lot of fine, decent boys coached by gentlemen sportsmen." W. G. Crowell, umpire and referee, described them in almost exactly the same language and said that violations of the rules were few and that penalties were imposed. "The players," said F. W. Murphy, umpire and field judge, "conducted themselves in a sportsmanlike manner." The Harvard Crimson declares that "no matter how honest they are flimsy lists of incidents like Hubbard's, based on circumstantial and partial evidence, cannot stand up," and it makes this point:

In none of the Princeton-Harvard games since the war has any member of either team revived a major penalty. This silent record is conclusive.

Robert Fisher, Harvard head coach for most of the time to which Hubbard's changes relate, condemns him unqualifiedly and hesitates to make any comment "o specific charges lest will give impetus to a subject that should never have been brought up." Representative Hamilton Fish, a former Harvard captain, is "ashamed" "that any ex-Harvard player should rush into print and charge Princeton football teams with deliberately playing dirty football and being coached to disable their opponents by illegal and unfair method." Fish played in a period when Harvard was almost uniformly victorious under Haughton's coaching.

If ever the Princeton players were unnecessarily rough the time to protest was when the offense occurred, as West Point did last year after a game with Syracuse when several of the cadets were disabled. No one thought the less of the Academy for speaking out, rather than nurse a grievance. One may be sure that if Harvard had won her games with Princeton, nothing would have been heard of "dirty" football. In the irritation that was inflamed by several defeats, rough play became distorted by some into foul play and suspicion into charges which the Harvard men have been quick to condemn. New York Times Jan. 25.