4

A powerful case is’ mace in the following pages against the rules
which awards the ball cus oF ibocs to the opponents after a success-
ful foul goal, T he srgwnernts aveinst it are listed, the reactions ©
of players, fans, and officials are given, together with the opinions
of outstanding coaches.

After the destructive crittcism, comes the constructive. A

remedy, simple and direct, is sug

C9

sestec. “nd the results of an
exerimental game in which the proposed remedy was used, are cited.

Have a look, please.

Criticism of Present Rule which Awards Ball to Opponent
After Completion of Successful Foul Goal
Ae Arguments against
41, "Punishes" the "innocent victim"

The pule really seys to a vlayer, "If yeu are good enough
a shooter to make the ticul shot, we shall award the ball to your
opponents. If you are a poor shooter and miss the basket, why we
shall let you 'fight it cut' for possession of the bali," Thos so
team whose player makes a fovl goal is punished by the fact that
the ball is given to the opposing team. The offensive team, inno=
cent of any offense, is doubly a victim; it has been fouled and
then loses the ball if it makes the goal. The advantage given by the
foul goal is partially, if not more than completely, offset by the
fact that the opponents now have tke ball and get a chance to score
two points.

2, “Rewards" the "guilty offender"

The team which fouleigets the ball. The offender does not de=
serve the ball. Why shovld he get the ball? Is it a reward for
fouling?

Se For no good reason the offense loses possession of the ball.

The offense had the ball and should retain it or be given at