GOLF: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
I REQUEST RETRACTION OF GROUNDLESS STATEMENTS AND INNUENDO CONTAINED IN "ON AND OFF THE FAIRWAYS" IN SEPT. 29 ISSUE REGARDING UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, LET ME QUOTE FROM PRESIDENTIAL ANNUAL ADDRESS TO FACULTY SEPT. 12, 1958: "A YEAR AGO WE ABOLISHED OUR FACULTY COMMITTEE ON EXCEPTIONS TO ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS. IT WAS INTENDED THAT AN EXCEPTION WOULD BE MADE BY THE PRESIDENT ONLY WHEN CONSULTATION REVEALED A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. DURING THIS PAST YEAR APPROXIMATELY 900 COLLEGE STUDENTS NOT IN GOOD STANDING ELSEWHERE SOUGHT BUT WERE DENIED ADMISSION TO THIS UNIVERSITY, I HAVE REJECTED EVERY CASE APPEALED TO ME....
"THIS FACULTY HAS INSTITUTED AND IS EXECUTING A POLICY OF SUCH STRICT GRADING THAT...AFTER THE FALL SEMESTER MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF OUR STUDENTS HAD EITHER QUIT VOLUNTARILY, WERE UNDER SUSPENSION FOR A FULL YEAR OR WERE UNDER ACADEMIC PROBATION OR WARNING.... WHILE I TAKE NO JOY IN SEEING YOUNG PEOPLE FAIL TO MAKE THE GRADE AND AS AN OLD PROFESSOR I FULLY REALIZE THAT SOME OF THIS PERCENTAGE OF FAILURE MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO INADEQUATE TEACHING, I STILL KNOW OF ONLY ONE WAY FOR A GREAT FACULTY TO MAKE A GREAT INSTITUTION OF LEARNING AND THAT IS TO INSIST UPON HIGH STANDARDS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR STUDENTS.... I AM GLAD TO REPORT THAT SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE I HAVE KNOWN OF NOT ONE VIOLATION OF ATHLETIC CONFERENCE AND NCAA RULES NOR HAVE I HEARD OF ANY REQUESTS FOR ACADEMIC EXCEPTION FOR ANY ATHLETE."
CLANTON W. WILLIAMS
President, University of Houston
•The University of Houston was established in 1934 as a municipal institution governed by a board of Houston citizens. It was substantially endowed (and substantially influenced) by Houston Oil Millionaire Roy Cullen, rapidly became the second-largest educational institution in Texas. But despite its size and wealth the University of Houston failed for 20 years to receive accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Dr. Clanton W. Williams, a nationally known historian of the Air Force and academic administrator, assumed the presidency in 1956 and since then his made rewarding efforts to raise academic standards.—ED.
FOOTBALL ISSUE: CRITICS, YET
Why foul up an otherwise stunning Football Issue with a painting (Pigskin Combat) that looks like a midnight frolic in an opium den?
East Orleans, Mass.
October 5, 1958
Can't guess why you should spoil the Football Issue with a double-paged nothing by a Mrs. Saul Steinberg.
She should look as "humorous" as you say this blob is.
PHILIP MANSFIELD SEAMANS
You state that the artist's individualism "leads her to deny membership in any [art] school."
Perhaps the art schools denied her membership.
Please print viewing instructions.
W. HOWARD GRIMES
WOODBURY VS. ROARING SPRING
I have been associated with baseball all my life, but for the first time have become involved in a practical problem that has caused much discussion and controversy. The following is an account of the whole incident as it happened:
Woodbury vs. Roaring Spring at Roaring Spring. Woodbury is at bat in the top half of the first inning. There is one man out with base runners on second and third. The batter lifts a fly ball to short right center field. The runner on third tags up, while the runner on second takes a normal lead for third in case the ball cannot be played. The right fielder, after making a nice run for the ball, overruns it slightly but manages to throw up his gloved hand and knock the ball into the air. At this moment the runner on third breaks for home and the runner on second turns back to return to second, but after returning only a few steps sees the ball bounce from the right fielder's glove and immediately turns and breaks for third without returning to tag up at second. As he does so, the right fielder reaches up with his bare hand and catches the ball for the second out and throws to second to double up the runner on second. During this process, the runner on third scores. But the umpire says the run does not count because of the double play—the catch of the fly ball and the double-up of the runner on second. The Woodbury manager protests the call, contending that the run should count because the run scored before the double play was completed at second base.
The game is completed and Roaring Spring defeats Woodbury 4-2. The protest is filed with the league president and a meeting of the arbitration board is called to settle the dispute.
The arbitration board meets and upholds the protest, contending that the run should count. So the game is to be replayed. The board also orders play to resume in the last half of the first inning, with Roaring Spring coming to bat and Woodbury leading 1-0. The board further orders that the lineups may be altered in any way, and that although a player who started the protested game does not start the replay, he may enter the replayed game at any time, just as long as each team fields nine men. The game is replayed and Roaring Spring defeats Woodbury 2-1.
Public opinion contends that the fly ball double play is the same as a ground ball double play if the runner does not tag up. Therefore the run would not count even if scored before the entire execution of the double play, just as a man cannot score on a double play in the infield; for example, 6-4-3.
It is also felt that if the protest is upheld the game should be played in its entirety, not from the last of the first inning.
Thirdly, public opinion feels that the players who started the original game should start the replay also or not be permitted to enter the game later on. It is felt that this would be the same as a player starting a game, leaving, then reentering later.
I hope I have related this in a way that is clear and understandable.
C. WESLEY LINGENFELTER
Roaring Spring, Pa.
•In the opinion of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED'S baseball department (which found Mr. Lingenfelter's letter clear and fascinating) the run definitely did count, as the runner was tagged up at the instant the outfielder first touched the ball and he did score before the third out of the inning was made (Official Baseball Rules, 6.05 and 4.09). The protest was justified because it involved an umpire's violation of the rules rather than a question of judgment, but the proper procedure in upholding a protest depends upon the league's own rules. Mr. Lingenfelter's league officials may have decided that the game was suspended from the moment of the faulty ruling and that everything that happened thereafter was in the nature of an exhibition. Rule 4.12 (d) reads in part: "A suspended game shall be resumed at the exact point of suspension of the original game. The completion of a suspended game is a continuation of the original game. The lineup and batting order of both teams shall be exactly the same as the lineup and batting order at the moment of suspension, subject to the rules governing substitution." Which leads our baseball desk to the opinion that the players who started in the original game should have started the replay or else not have been permitted to enter the game later on.—ED.