In each game that was played, one of two combinations of end lines
was used. The game was played eitherwith 2 feet behind the backboard (the
regular distance) at one end and 4 feet at the other, or 2 feet at one end
and 6 feet at the other. No games were played with 4 feet at one end and 6
feet at the other. Fourteen regular games with two varsity teams were played.
Eight of these were with the 2 feet and 4 feet end lines; and six were with
the 2 feet and 6 feet end lines. Eleven additional scrimmages were held with
different combinations of players and the scrimmages were for different leng-
ths of time as shown in the tables. Five of these scrimmages were with the
2 feet and 6 feet end lines and six were with the 2 feet and 4 feet end lines.

Because of the double markings at the end of the court and because
of the conditioned reflexes with respect to the distance under the present
rule, between the backboard and the end line the players experienced some
difficulty in adjusting themselves to and taking advantage of the greater
freedom offered as a result of the extension behind the backboards. The data
is arranged in the order in which the games were played, so it may be seen
that as the players became accustomed to the added Space they used it to
advantage.

It will be noted from the tabulated data that the number of "un-
avoidable" out of bounds balls were comparable regardless of whether the end
lines were 2,4 or 6 feet behind the backboards. This is as it should be if
the judgment of the recorder is correct.

With respect to a comparison of out of bounds due and probably aue
to the end lines between the 2 and 4 feet end lines, it will be seen that
there were four times more out of bounds balls at the 2 feet end than there
were at the four feet end line. This same relationship holds true between
the 2 and 6 feet end lines. The same relationship, although not as pro-
nounced, holds true for out of bounds balls that are probably due to the end
lines. The difference is so marked both from the study of the recorded data
and from the observation of play that one is forced to the obvious conclu-
sion that there is a decided advantage to continuity of play in favor of the
extended end lines. From the recorded date there seems to be no apparent
advantage between the 4 and 6 feet end lines. However, from the standpoint
of the use of the added area and from the standpoint of the observations
made concerning freedom of movement and elimination of roughness, everything
points to the 6 feet end lines.

It will be noticed first of all that there was practically twice
as much play beyond the regular end lines in the case of the 6 feet end lines
as there was in the case of the 4 feet end lines; 156 cases as against 87.
It was observed, however, that there was considerably more freedom under
the basket at the 6 feet end lines than there was at the 4 feet end line.
The 4 feet end line did not permit the player taking the ball off the back-
board to take a step with freedom or to circle out around his opponent be-
hind the backboard with the ease that was permitted at the 6 feet end line.
As a result of this difference practically all of the blocking, pushing out
of bounds, charging and general roughness was eliminated at the 6 feet end
line.

The writer is heartily in favor of changing the rules so that the
face of the backboards sets into the court 6 feet from the end lines. How-
ever, before such a change is made a thorough study through a questionnaire
survey is recommended in order to determine the feasibility and cost of mak-
ing such a change in the various gymnasia of the country. This should be
done because it is felt that no change in the rules should be made which
would be impossible of general execution. With the changes in the recom-
mended size of courts it would probably be a wise plan to move the back-
boards into the court an additional 4 feet rather than to extend the length
of the court.

FREER