Pleasant relations have consistantly been the goal of Harvard and Yale athletic heads and the feeling of friendly rivalry between the traditional opponents has in large measure permitted the athletic relations of each with other colleges. The agreement announced last night whereby the choice of officials for the annual Harvard Yale football game will be entrusted to a neutral party is therefore, not only commendable in itself, but equally praiseworthy as an example which might quite logically be followed by all Eastern colleges. A similar arrangement has been instituted with success in the "Big Ten" Association, and whereas the present system here has not resulted in a recognized evil, the lot of a big game referee, dependent on the approval of the rival coaches for his position, could not have been a very happy one.

A second and more important good to come out of the new arrangement is expected to be the effect it will have on improving the standard of officiating. Outstanding enforcements of the rules to the disadvantage of one team or the other have generally remained longer in the memory of the coach whose team was affected by the ruling than a corresponding noticable laxity on the part of the official. The best officials are likely unconsciously perhaps, to take cognizance of this feeling. Making their work subject only to the approval of an unprejudiced party should do much to eliminate the cause of the professional baseball "Fill the umps" type of bad feeling which occasionally creeps into intercollegiate meetings.