matched against size and avkwardness.
15. Especially unfair at the end of a game when the score is close.
During close games, especially at the very end of the playing

panies: the rule works « special hardship on the team which is behind.
a few points and desperatziy 1s trying totie the score. if fouied,
all the losing team can 2t best do is to score one point and then it
loses possession of the bail. ‘They cannot urain gain possession of
the ball until the other team make emistake or attempts a shot. Even
in the latter case the ball may be retired by the winning team. Thus
the losing team, if fouled, hes 1ittlLe or no chance to tie the score.
The rule tends at the end of a close game to put a premium on fouling

by the winning team ana on fpaks missing by losing tean.

Summary Statement:
In view of the reasons just advanced, the rule is a poor means
to an end which cannot be completely justified. More rational re-

sults ought to be attained. Better means can be devised.

B. Opinions of Coaches, Players and those interested in the Game.

Numerous players, fans, officiais, end coackes, with whom ni
have discussed the rule, have agreed thet it lacks sound reasoning
and that what it proposes to accomplish cam be better done by a more
rational means.

While the West Coest is in favor of elimineting all jumps at
center, I have never read nor heard any convincing argument for doing
so.

Coaches in the East end iid-west are in favor of retaining the

center jump. They do not want 4t eliminated and deplore the results

of the new out-of-bounds rule.