The game with Yale on Saturday afternoon ended in a tie, neither side having scored, a result most unsatisfactory for both Harvard and Yale, in that both teams threatened their opponent's goal line and both lost the opportunities presented them. Yale threw away the opening that she had secured after rushing the ball steadily to Harvard's 12yard line, on a mistaken signal followed by a fumble by DeSaulles. Harvard, on the' other hand, has no such plea of carelessness to vindicate herself for not gaining the coveted four yards to the Yale line. To rush the ball only four yards, after the determined attack on Yale's line which had netted so many gains, should have been inevitable. Failure to accept such a chance may have been largely due to the generalship at such a critical stage. It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that those four yards could have been covered with more certainty by Bouve than by lighter men like Cabot, Parker and Garrison. However, even with those men carrying the ball, Harvard's forwards instead of playing an up-hill game should have forced the Yale line, with the same reckless gait which had carried the ball so far.

Yale's defense was strong, incomparably stronger than it had been represented, yet even with this unexpected force against them, Harvard's forwards should still have carried the preponderance in their favor. As it was, the line almost to a man played football hardly consistent with their ability, and not one man exceeded his past capabilities, a fact brought out in glaring contrast to the work of the Yale line. The Harvard team undoubtedly had underestimated Yale's defensive strength, and it is also probable that Yale considered Harvard's defensive stronger than it was. It was just this one factor that prevented Harvard from scoring. Taken by surprise on both sides, Yale showed characteristic pluck and determination, while Harvard, even though stronger than their opponents could not assume that reckless bearing and fierce determination which gains ground against a formidable opponent.

Yale played fiercely and made every opportunity count. This was especially true of their forwards, who were not content with stopping plays aimed at them but broke through and often tackled for loss. Harvard's line, on the other hand, was at times forced steadily for small gains. The men played strictly on the defensive and merely did their best to stop Yale's rushes. They got under their man, but the fierceness of Yale's attacks and the impetus with which they plunged into Harvard's line, inevitable carried them forward for small two and three yard gains.

Owing to the unusually high wind the possibility of one side's winning on the superiority of a punter was early presented Right here is one of the most remarkable coincidences that has happened in recent football. McBride and Haughton both played best against the wind. McBride is party excusable for his poor kicking the first half, when his position so near the line enabled the Harvard forwards to break through on him repeatedly. During the first half Haughton kicked beautifully and did much to offset for Harvard the disadvantage of having to buck against the wind. In the second, with a high wind and wonderful protection on punts favoring him, his punts were shorter and less well placed. His catching was also rather uncertain and his running lacked method and decision.

Harvard's offensive play was weaker than expected. The backs found difficulty in gaining through many positions that hitherto have been used with much effectiveness. During the first few minutes of play, Yale's ends appeared as weak as they had been represented, as Dibblee and Warren then made the longest runs of the game. On an average, however, end plays were by no means sure of gains. The interference was easily broken up, most often by the forwards who broke through, or the runner was hindered by his own men. The backs were also slow in starting, and when they were off, ran with none of the energy that characterized the work of the Yale backs. Dibblee and Warren, however, both did excellent work under the conditions, and would doubtless have increased the gains, had the forwards prevented the Yale line from getting throught.

On the ends, Moulton and Cabot were given little opportunity to break up end plays as Yale nearly always tried the line when they had the ball. They were both a little off their form. Capt. Cabot's weak leg prevented him from getting well down on kicks, with the result that he was often eluded.

The line-up the teams follows:

HARVARD. YALE.

Cabot, l. e. r. e., Hall.

Swain, Wheeler, l. t. r. t., Chamberlain.

Bouve, l. g. r. g., Brown.

Doucette, c. c., Cadwalader.

Haskell, Shaw, r. g. l. g., Chadwick.

Donald, Mills, r. t. l. t., Rodgers.

Moulton, r. e. l. e., Hazen.

Garrison, q. b. q. b., DeSaulles.

Dibblee, l. h. b. r. h. b., Benjamin.

Warren, Parker, r. h. b. l. h. b., Corwin.

Haughton, f. b. f. b., McBride.

Summary: Score-Harvard, 0; Yale, 0. Umpire-Paul Dashiel, Lehigh. Referee-McClung, Lehigh. Linesmen-J. Graham, B. A. A., D. M. Goodrich, Harvard, J. Howland, Yale. Timekeeper-F. Wood, B. A. A. Time- 35m. halves.