So how accurate were the predictions after all?

• Jimmy Garoppolo

• CJ Beathard

• Nick Mullens

Game Day

Escape from the City

Battle of the Newspapers

The Sportscope Speaks Out

Stone-age football tactics, by which the ancient cave-dwellers sought to hold their own by sheer brute force, threaten to lock all gateways of clean sportsmanship to the Staley Athletic club after the flagrant exhibition of rowdyism against the Independents yesterday at Douglas park.
The fact that three Independents are crippled seriously today are the result of such disgraceful tactics of a team composed of players from several of the most reputable colleges in the country is obvious that their fate was premeditated and injuries imposed with wanton execution.
With a foul player like Trafton, the Staley's best gutter champion, roaming the field at large against teams whose ideals are cloaked in nothing but clean sport—win or lose strictly upon one's merits—the Staleys wills soon find the best professional elevens in the country turning their backs on them.
No team in the country will book games that will virtually endanger the lives of its players. Still, several sporty teams have suffered greatly at the hands of the Staleys. Ursella and [Walt] Buland have been out of the game for three works as a result of foul play in the previous game at Douglas park. Yesterday the Staleys eliminated four others.
Such tactics must cease or the Staley A. C. won't be able to meet a decent football team. One thing is certain: no matter who are what they become in professional football, they will never get another chance with Rock Island.

The fact that the Staleys were penalized for a total of 40 yards for unnecessary roughness indicates that they were out to get all the Independents they could and put them out of the game. Nothing could have been more obvious. Their dirty tactics point to a premeditated system for disposing of the Islanders as quickly as possible.
Hard football cannot be classed with foul football. They are distinctive. There is no complaint from a good sportsman who is struck with injurious effect when such is necessary to keep him from advancing. But when it is clear that a runner cannot advance the ball after being downed, it is murderous to pile up on him or otherwise jeopardize his life by such tactics as Trafton used yesterday to put Gunderson out of the game.
Muckers is not the word for such miscreants, who literally seek an opposing player's life. Today, Gunderson is out of the game for three weeks with 11 stitches over his left eye, two stitches in his under lip and a broken left hand. Lying prone as he was, it is only a miracle that a big brute like Crafton [sic] didn't finish his foul determination and kill Gunderson.

Umpire "Stub" Barron was the official who called the foul on Trafton. His penalty, under the rules, was to disqualify the player and penalize the Staleys half the distance to their goal line; which he did. Naturally, the Staleys raised a great howl that Trafton's violation of the rules had been purely unintentional. However, they did not stop to think that no knowledge of the law may be given as an excuse.
Williams, who had refereed the previous game, was completely dominated by the Staley team. At one time during the argument that ensued he was heard to remark to Captain Halas:
"Don't worry; I am looking out for our own interests."
The remark was overheard by a Rock Island player who was lying near the men as they passed. The fact that Williams finally compromised by penalizing the Staleys only 10 yards for “running into opponents” proved there was at least some ground for the conviction that Trafton's violation had been intentional and should have been within the jurisdiction of section 1 of rule 23 of the football code.
Umpire Barron called the penalty as it should have been. There was noting [sic] else for him to do, as it was entire unnecessary for Trafton to have been in the play. The Staleys claim that Trafton had stumbled over the pile-up. If he had merely stumbled, he would have gone on and over Gunderson, without sliding and cutting his face almost to ribbons.
Such bandits should remember that there are eyes on every field that can detect such gross insults to the name of fair sport, and football brains that can discern between intentional and unintentional fouls.

Pearce, always a gentleman, did his utmost to keep the game clean and the Staley team beyond reproach, but he was outnumbered 11-1, including Referee Williams, who might as well have been a paid employee of the Staley aggregation.
The fact remains: if you can't be a thoroughbred, don't travel. The writer cannot be too vindictive on this score, because next to the surething guy comes the slugger, in his estimation. If these gutter earmarks are entitled to a place in the sporting sun, what is the world coming to, as Rupert Hughes says.

A Gambling Circle?

On second thought, a Rock Island gambling tout might or might not have been directly responsible Sunday afternoon at Douglas park for the unfortunate indiscretion of Trafton. Staley center. It is a spirit of absolute fairness that impels to give Trafton the benefit of such doubt.
It is a known fact that this gambling tout, without a dime of his own to wager, accosted Trafton in the Davenport hotel on Saturday night with the malicious suggestion that he bet $100 even that Gunderson would put him out of the game intentionally in the first quarter.
This might have been a vicious misrepresentation to Trafton and the rest of the Staleys, impelling them to come to Rock Island and not be caught napping. In other words, they might have resolved to get us before "we could get them," wholly at the intimation of this disreputable gambling tout.
The menace of such a character being among the first to greet visiting players not only threatens to counter-act Rock Island's good reputation in professional football but it also serves to stimulate the ill will that was apparent Sunday in the unsportsmanlike tactics of the Staley eleven.

The Democrat Responds

The bets of "enthusiastic" fans that Gunderson would "get" Trafton before the end of the first quarter ended disastrously for a Swede center and a number of other players as well.
The only time the Staley center was in danger was when some rowdy threw a pop bottle into the taxi in which Trafton and several others were riding after the game. Fortunately none were injured by the missle [sic] or broken glass.
It's a foregone conclusion, however, that what the Independents did yesterday was offset by the unsportsmanlike "fans" who displayed their prejudices in such a cheap manner as to disgust all lovers of good, clean sports.
For the sake of a few cents, or probably dollars, which they had bet, one of the most rowdy, maudlin, filthy and ungentlemanly volley of unclean and unwarranted cheers was made that put even the hard fighting Independents in a bad light.
It's a certainty that Rock Island has many "short sports." Rather than suffer defeat they evidenced the fact that there was nothing too mean and vile for them to say or do, and the majority of the crowd, which was only 20 per cent from Rock Island, was completely disgusted with the rowdyism that leaves a stain on clean sports and especially professional football in the Island City.

Much of the dirty work on the side-lines is said to be the result of the sentiment fostered during the week by Rock Island's only sport writer, who for the entire week has been quoting Trafton, Staley's center, to the effect that he would "get" the Rock Island line during the game.
Trafton was personally challenged, in the Davenport hotel Saturday evening, and a handful of these birds from Rock Island heckled and "razzed" him into bets that he would be forced to take time before the end of the first quarter. Trafton bet till his money was gone and went into the game yesterday hammer and tongs. He took no time out during the entire game and is said to have personally accounted for Gunderson, Chicken, Smith and Nichols. Trafton was approached at the hotel in the presence of a Davenport Democrat representative, who witnessed the allegations made by the Rock Island men.

If Referee Williams, who the "backers" of the Independents claim was unfair, had been just, he would have penalized the home team at least 20 yards when a cyclone of cheers in the grandstand made it impossible for the visitors to call their signals. This the referee has the power to do and it no doubt would have stopped the noise.
When a crowd cheers because a player has been injured, especially if they player has been clean, as it did when Pierce [sic, was referring to Pearce] was temporarily winded, there is little sportsmanship in its makeup.
Isn't it too bad these former "barrel-house" supporters could not have been under that section of the bleachers that collapsed.
Decatur fans who came a long way to see a real football game, took home with them something new in the form of "rooting" and it's more than likely they'll spread the news.
Probably no one was more disappointed with the methods used yesterday than Walter Flannigan [sic], manager of the Independents. He has at all times stood for good, clean football and it is known that he was not in accord with the tactics of those who could not think of losing their money, if there was a possible means of preventing defeat.

The Independents and their management covered themselves with glory yesterday, but—well the least said about some things the better. Any person that loves clean football rooting had a bad taste in his mouth following yesterday's game.

Copeland Fights Back

In commenting on Sunday's football game, The Davenport Democrat calls us "an over-enthusiastic, altho prejudiced sport writer." As far as over-enthusiasm goes, we are glad we can still enjoy life. As to prejudice, which is almost identical with incapability, we would stoop to advise that persons with narrow shoulders should never wear suspenders.

In reading this column, Argus readers are humbly requested to bear in mind that prior to last Sunday there had been no grievances between The Davenport football writer and The Sportscope. However, during the Independent-Staley football game at Douglas park, the Democrat football expert (?) took occasion to defile Rock Island fans their sportsmanship. Above all, he condoned Trafton's foul tactics and as much as said by innuendo that Gunderson got what was coming to him. Money, this same writer continued his tirade in his sport pages[...] Perhaps he is just one of those "who never could know and never could understand." A vast majority of Davenport fans are "salt of earth," and their presence at any sporting event in Rock Island is always cordially invited. Please excuse them from this dissertation, which is designed wholly for the enlightenment of The Davenport Democrat football writer, who with no stint of verbiage, has insulted the intelligence of Rock Island fandom and the experience of the writer of The Sportscope.

Turn to the football code, Nodrog, and let's have a little skull practice. We shall begin by reading section 3 of rule 15, whose text is:
"No delay arising from any cause whatsoever shall continue more than two minutes." Is that perfectly clear? Simple enough, isn't it? Well, let's proceed. Under "Penalty" we see:
"Unreasonable delay on the part of the side not in possession of the ball—Loss of 5 yards, the scrimmage following to remain first down.
"Unreasonable delay on the part of the side in possession of the ball—Loss of 5 yards, the down and the point to be gained for first down remaining the same as they were at the beginning of the scrimmage during which the delay occurred.
"Refusal of either side to play within two minutes after having been ordered to do so by the referee—Forfeiture of the game."
Do you know what is the score of a forfeited game? No? Well, as this is a primary class in football, know you hereafter that it is 1-0.
Cheering so that signals cannot be heard should be classified under rule 15 (Delay of Game), shouldn’t it? The wording of the rule itself does not interpret "from any cause whatsoever." It leaves that broad interpretation to the judgment of the referee and field judge. In a way, you are right because the rule contains no specific factors for penalization, neither players or spectators.
Infliction of the penalty is confined wholly to the players, but no mention is made of the spectators. Still, a referee or a field judge might exercise the prerogative left for their interpretation and impose a 5-yard penalty.
See any reference to "at least 20 yards" there? See any reference to the referee having the authority to penalize for such a "delay?"
And, lo, under "Penalty," it is stipulated that only team delays are to be adjudged. Remember, Nodrog, that to report a football game for your newspaper, you first have to possess some knowledge of the rules. Then, perhaps, you will never again make such a ridiculous assertion that a team, either with or without possession of the ball, can be penalized 5. NO "AT LEAST 20 YARDS," because the jubilant or outraged fans persist in cheering or JEERING for more than two minutes. Remember, Nodrog! That is, unless the referee is a broad interpreter of the rule.

As to the "fairness" of Referee Williams, which you allege, Nodrog, here is a specimen (remember, you implied as much):
The moment Trafton committed his flagrant fouling of Gunderson, Umpire Barron ran in, disqualified Trafton and motioned to Referee Williams to advance the ball half the distance to the Staley goal line. Why? Because Trafton had struck, kneed and kicked Gunderson. You saw it, didn't you?
Well, Nodrog, did you see Captain Halas of Staley run toward your sanctimonious Mr. Williams, crying: "Are you going to stand for that?" Did you see Williams falter, consult with Halas and then stride toward Umpire Barron? Did you hear Williams declare, "That foul was unintentional?" Did you see him consult with Halas again? Do you believe they were discussing THEIR return trip to Decatur?
[Copeland lists off rules on hitting with certain body parts like the elbows, along with how the umpire should enforce penalties for such incidents. For my sanity, I'll provide them in this image.]
You know that Williams finally proposed a compromise penalty [the ten-yard "Running into opponents" one], don't you, Nodrog? Isn't a compromise proposed by one who is subject to frequent attacks of cold feet? Doesn’t he admit he is wrong by proposing a compromise? If he weer [sic] courageous, wouldn’t he stick to his convictions? Williams violated the code himself by misinterpreting rule 27, section 1, and disregarding rule 23, section 1, under "Duties of the Referee["]: and ignoring rule 23, section 1, under "Brief of Rules Where Umpire Has Jurisdiction."
Williams' compromise was based on rule 23, section 6, under “Conduct of Players,” which reads: “There shall be no running into opponents after the ball has been declared dead. “Usually, Nodrog, this rule is interpreted to apply to fouls committed where both players are on their feet. Williams had only to view the result of Trafton’s willful foul to determine which penalty should be imposed.
The Sportscope has attempted to correct your assertion that Referee Williams was fair. It hopes you understand, Nodrog!

You don't mean that, do you, Nodrog? If you do, there is murder in your heart. Why, the very idea of wishing anything that breathes—good, bad or indifferent—to be in such a fatal predicament! You must give your intelligence more exercise, Nodrog! If that is an example of your mentality, you are living in stoneage times, not 1920 A. D. It is dangerous to reputation to print a statement in which you infer it is pitiful that human beings cannot be killed off. Did you stop to think of that before you began to write?
As to Decatur's "outraged" fandom at the game, The Sportscope daresays they witnessed only the culmination of a series of black-guardly fouls on the part of their own "oppressed" football team during the game. The Sportscope also daresays that such thrilled turned to shivers when they suddenly awoke the fact that they weren't on their own lot, and saw a frenzied mob chasing their beloved, self-appointed midwest football champions from the field. Otherwise, The Sportscope cannot imagine how they could take home "something new."
On Aug. 23, 1980, the writer saw his first professional baseball game. He had that memorable date jotted down in his memory book and will never forget it. His first impression of professional sport was the spectacle of fully one thousand fans in the act of chasing a single umpire to the clubhouse on the Polo Grounds, New York. That was a little more than thirty years ago, and The Sportscope further daresays that similar incidents have occurred frequently ever since. It has occurred in Davenport more often than The Democrat writer cares to admit, and everywhere else at times when foul tactics incite general fandom to run riot.
You cannot stop it, Nodrog; so what are we to do?

The Democrat Responds 2: Electric Boogaloo

TWELVE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO COPELAND.
(1) Because he gave 12 reasons why the Staleys couldn't win, and 12 why Rock Island couldn't lose before the first game.
(2) Because the Staleys won anyway.
(3) Because he thinks a team gets penalized 15 yards for having three men off-side.
(4) Because he don't write in English, and his stuff isn't worth translating.
(5) Because he might throw a pop bottle at you if he got too close to you.
(6) Because he believes you ought to "score" a prize fight just like a baseball game.
(7) Because he is vulgar, and accuses his colleagues of wearing suspenders.
(8) Because he isn't a safe man to have around—he is a jazzing fool, and specializes on "Sporting Jazz".
(9) Because he gets personal, and that isn't nice a-tawl!
(10) Because after this issue of "Homade Hooch" gets around his reputation wouldn't be worth 30c.
(12) Because everybody around here knows he is a has-been, and most suspect that he is a never-was.
(13) Because what he has to say doesn't make any difference anyway.

The Rock Island Argus devoted seven of its eight columns on the sporting page to the Davenport Democrat yesterday. We have not that amount of space available for an answer—Democrat space is too valuable—but we do devote a good part of this column to the subject, not to answer such ridiculous questions but to show the public at large how little some sporting experts know of their own subject.
WE DEFY YOU TO DENY THIS:
We recall a little incident at the Rock Island-Staley first game [the 7–0 Decatur win]. Rock Island was penalized 15 yards.
"Oh!" chirped Rock Island's only sporting editor, "what is the matter? Is someone off side?"
"Yes," replied a Democrat staff member, "three men off side."
The Rock Island editorial pencil lit upon the page.
"Hey, Bruce," called a more charitably inclined Democrat representative, "don't put that down, they were holding." Thus was the Argus once more saved from making a "Sporting Jazz" of its news stories.
The Argus Editorial
We wonder what the Argus editorial department thinks about this malicious attack on the Democrat. In their editorial Monday night, they did not agree with "by Bruce Copeland" at all.
The Argus gave the ferocious Rock Island fans a severe "sacking" on the editorial page, while Bruce was loudly praising them on the sport page. He has never, to our knowledge, even mentioned the pop bottle episode, except in a general way, where it was his plain duty to devote several columns under his journalistic methods to disapproving of it.
Bruce seems to think it is quite the proper thing to throw pop bottles at the visitors. Probably he learned that at the first professional baseball game he attended back in 1865, or else he inherited it from a long line of baboons who threw cocoanuts [sic] at the visitors in the jungle. To sum up, however, we agree with the Argus editorial department, not with the sports department.

Democrat, 88; Bruce Copeland, 0.
November, 11; Germany, 0.
What-we-say, 100; What-he-says, 0.

YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH A GUY THAT TALKS LATIN.
(From the Rock Island Argus.)
[Feeney repeats the note added by Copeland at the end of his gambling ring article (the one about suspenders)]
A free translation of the Argus panning follows: "Our spirit is young, even if we are bald-headed. Lay off on the rough stuff." The sentence about the suspenders, however, cannot be translated—it is Latin idiom, that is, written by a Latin idiot.
We now reply to the R. I editor in his mother tongue, so that he, too, may understand:
Having never matriculated from either Yale or Harvard, we are inclined to view with suspicion the urbane metaphors of the self-admitted, over enthusiastic and prejudiced only sport critic of the neighboring community.
Comparisons are always odious, but we have always been taught that a well groomed man never wears suspenders, and unaccustomed to their weight on our narrow shoulders we will consult the ouija board immediately in order to determine whether some malicious minded person has been using vile appelations [sic] in connection with our personality.
Judging from the continued bleating of Mr. Copeland, R. I.'s alleged sport writer (?) one would almost believe that he not only condones but approves of pop bottle episodes and riots.

The Aftermath

When ladies would a-bowling go,
Man wants but little here below.
No matter how they fall from grace
And throw the balls around the place,
Men overlook their sickly score,
But not the hosiery that they wore.
He didn't break his collar-bone
Beneath a wagon-load of stone!
No flivver hit him in the neck!
No, it was not a railroad wreck!
A harder fate was his, 'twould seem:
He played against the Staley team!

Future Rock Island Battles

What About Copeland?

The victory also proved the utter disregard of Chicago newspapers for a football team which in every way is superior to the Staleys, conceded national champions after playing the Akron Indians in a scoreless tie. A game of that kind would have packed Madison Square Garden, New York, from tanbark to girders and filled columns of space in New York newspapers.
There is an insidious influence in Chicago which never wished the Islanders any great amount of weal. It is also probable that the Staleys did not wish to see a detailed description of their utter rout as inflicted by the Independents. Somebody put on the soft pedal.
[Some proclamations about the superiority of Rock Island's players and arguing the Independents could have won the 1920 APFA title if they "[showed] more fight" like they did in the exhibition]

Chicago AFTERNOON newspapers, who showed a greater inclination to recommend the classic than their contemporaries, and also handbills and scorecards advertised the locals as the Independents. The Staley's, however, took the wise precaution to disguise themselves as the Chicago Thorns without even being hyphenated to their rightful identity.
Today's Chicago Tribune printed an obscure article supplied by Joe Prendergast Sunday night after it was learned that the early editions of both Chicago morning dailies contained no mention of the Independent-Staley contest. Prendergast called both offices on the phone at 11 p. m. and both professed great surprise that there had been such a game. They didn't even know the score.
The Tribune stated today that the Staleys had disbanded previously. Nine of their regular players in Sunday's lineup fails to corroborate the fact. Seeing as how nine Staleys and two others were defeated by eleven representative Rock Island Independents, who had sought to protect the record of that organization by billing themselves previously as the Rock Island Professionals, it is no more than hair, as they were advertised by the game promoters as the Independents, that they should be credited with having defeated the Staleys, not the Chicago Thorns.