actually "called® a better game in the second instance than in the first.
After all, in the former instance, the reason why so few fouls were called —
was beaause of the type of ball played. The game seemed to be worked well
because there was nothing to call. The officials could have just as well
hung up their whistzes and sat on the hench watching the game for all of
the value they had for that particular game. Few fouls were called because

there were few to call, and it wasn't the officials fault that th was
played as it was. It was the fault of the two teams, and that goes Jback .
originally to the type of game the coach had taught them. A

| (I'll grant of course that, between two types of officials,
the one who holda a rigid cheek on the players, and the other who is apt
to be a little more loose, the first mentioned official is more apt to
keep a game from deteriorating into a rough house than the last named, but
my point is that if two teams are coached to play basketball and not rough
house there will be few fouls to aall). — :

3 Your study begins with the statement, “Before it was deemed
possible to recommend ways and means to reduce the number of fouls
COMMITTED OR CALLED in the game of basketball, it seemed wise eceesses
fouls committed.*® "Fouls committed or called*® is the set-up, yet the |
study deals more with the*fouls called*® and very little is said about the
fouls committed and the circumstances under which they were committed. The
entire study deals with the type of foul called by the official, and then
goes on to state that the free throwing resulting frem these called fouls
resulted in the actual winning of the game in a certain percentage of
Casede

HOW CAN THAT DEDUCTION BY MADE FROM THE STUDY when so many
other factors are missing? How do you know that the free throwing actually
won or lost the game? What about the baskéts that were missed by the
plieyers of the losing team? What about the baskets that were missed by .
the winning team that may have made for a larger score on their part? How —
about the sudstitutions made by the coach at se-ealled critical moments 4
that either made for or against defeat or victory?

Before any statement such as made by your report that so and
so free throwing, which goes back at once to the fouls called by the |
official, either won or loat a game, it seems to me that there ought also

to be measured the factors of baskets missed by both sides, and the actual
substitutions made. It is easy enough) of course, to tabulate the baskets
missed by both sides, AND THE SPOT FROM WHICH THEY WERE MISSED, and this

is done by many coaches, but my point is that your study is of no value

as far as the deductions you make if you only include the fouls called and
do not put in baskets missed. | : |

How to measure the substitutions made and the influence upon
the result of the game is a horse of another color, and that isn't so easy,
but if you are going to make any predictions as to influence upon results _
of games, that certainly ought to be ineluded in the picture.

Because you have left out these factors I believe that your
deductions regarding the influenee of making free throws upon the result
of the game, which means the influence of the official calling fouls, I
believe that your repott as it stands cannot have much value.