ee te

3, 5, and 6. Your belief that a brief interval following a
score would be helpful to the game finds support here. However, my reasons
do not parallel yours. I believe it would be worthwhile solely because of
its dramatic effect in that it will allow everyone a time to appreciate the
making of a score just as a good comedian pauses long enough to let his joke
register. Such a pause could be obtained by allowing possession in all
cases as the present rules provide, but carry the ball to the center sideline
for the pass-in instead from the end line under the basket.

Your suggestion that all free throws follow the technical foul
procedure, I am sure, will be met by vigorous objection because it adds a lot
to the penalty for a foul by giving not only a chance for the point but def-
inite ball possession to the offended team. The majority, I think, feel that
the present punishment of a chance for the point plus the record against the
offender is sufficient punishment for a foul.

Perhaps your idea might be incorporated along this line, though.
How about using the technical foul regulation when a personal foul has been
punished by two free throws?

Also, don't you think that the argument that your proposal is good
because it prevents tip-ins following missed free throws would be countered by
fact that most of the fouls are called on the guard of the tall man. I recall
that Kurland, for instance, was fouled approximately 17 times by Oklahoma. To
give the Aggies ball possession whether he made or missed the free throw cer-
tainly would have been welcomed by the tall man.

4. The five personal fouls allowed this year was not a confession
that the game has become confusing. The reason stressed concerned the additional
playing time made possible by modification of the center jump. Under the old
jump rules the ball was in play from 20 to 24 minutes. Four fouls thus had a
relationship to the playing time of 1 to 5 or 6. Without the jump playing time
was increased to about 30 minutes. Thus, five fouls establishes the same
time relationship that prevailed previously.

Recently there has been an unfavorable reaction against five
fouls. The Questionnaire Committee has called for a statistical study and will
probably revote on that rule. Returns from this area indicate a vast majority
favoring the five fouls, and I feel obligated to support it.

7. The adoption of uniform jumping situations was tried in K.C.
while I coached at Westport, and again in the Big Six. It met with favor in
this area but other sections outvoted us. I have presented it every year,
and last year obtained the agreement to have it on the questionnaire. I will
urge its adoption.

9. Naturally you arouse the ire of all memberstwhen you infer that
lack of “progressiveness" of the present group prevents elevation of the
basket. Adherents of a higher basket have submitted only unproved and untried
theories to substantiate their contentions. Opposed to them is one scientific
“test made by Roy Mundorff that a 12 foot basket reduces scoring accuracy by
approximately 30%, and practically eliminates the running lay-in close shot.

; Progress, as I understand it, is a movement or action leading to
gmprovement. In common with the vast majority of coaches I don't feel that