ELIMINATE SECTIONAL DIFFERENCES

 

Tremors amounting almost to earthquake proportions shook
the Eastern basketball world during January as an aftermath: of two
important intersectional games played in New York. A mid-West and
a Southern team met two leaders of the Metropolitan area before
packed houses in Madison Square Garden. Following the game visiting
players and coaches noted many drastic differences in rules interpre-
tations from those to which they were accustomed at home.

New York sports writers found these complaints a source
of interesting comment. The resulting articles brought heated re-
plies from Eastern basketball men who ridiculed the interpretations
of the other sections. As usual, an unpleasant situation developed
when the arguments began to include personal criticism. The climax
found a game official quoted in the press as of the conviction that
one of the visiting coaches deliberately taught foul tactics, and
should be chased out of the coaching profession.

While these public arguments are not new to this or to
other sports, the welfare of amateur athletics certainly should de-
mand their elimination. The setting for this upheaval focused the
attention of the nation's sports followers upon basketball ina
manner that may or may not be detrimental. If such incidents bring
popular ridicule the damage will be great. However, should the
publicity spot light show us more clearly the game's imperfections
and drive us to action which aims at their eradication, then the
rumpus in New York will have been a valuable aid to basketball
development.

The first obvious imperfection shown is the need of higher
ethical standards among basketball authorities. Realization must be
driven home that the game suffers when those responsible for its
conduct insist upon turning honest differences of opinion into at-
tacks of a personal character. We must demand that coaches and of-
ficials take more seriously one section of our Creed which reads:

"I believe in the exercise of all patience, tolerance and
diplomacy at my command in my relations with all players, game of-
ficials and spectators."

Insufficient information regarding the incidents in New
York disoualifies this writer as a judge in this dispute. It must
be stressed, however, that the result is a blemish on our teaching
of good conduct.

Another, and more familiar imperfection, here demonstrated
deals with the wide differences in rules interpretations that appear
to be prevalent in various sections. The situation often arises in
which two men from different sections, reading from the same rule,
reach vastly contrasting conclusions regarding certain parts of a play.

Probably the best informed man on the practices common in
many sectors is Dr. H. C. Carlson, coach at the University of
Pittsburgh, whose teams travel most widely. His comments on the dif-
ferences in interpretations are timely and interesting. He writes:

"Coming from No Man's Land and having played in the East
and West, we would like to contribute neutral suggestions to a more