Page four -

use by any firm, whether its name is “hosit, Porter or Sam Lung. Ino nut-shell
the case boils dovm to what in geometry would be termed reductio ad absurdun,

The report overlooks the goo’-ncighbor policy and takes 2 crack at Canada. The
reasoning is sylogistic.

Major premise--Purge the Rules Committec of those who will not bow: down.

Minor premise=-lhe Canucks will not conform. (They like the molded basketball, the
sma21l1 backboard and other rules which the Cormittec has sdoptec.)

Conclusion--"Why is Canada=-given two representatives on the Rules Committee," end
quote.

T,e report objects to an jithletic Journal article "Yu Can't Stand in the Way of
Progress", The article gave some facts to dispel some of the wild rumors about the
development of some of the rules of basketball. It was written at the request of the
the editorial department. Anyone who is interested in how rules which legalized the
smiller basketball which is now universally usec, the 4-foot end zone, the screening
rule, the larger court, the molded ball and the small backboard, ought to reac it.
Of course, it takes some of the glamour out of the whispering campaignabout "press-
ure groups" and the manufacturing octopus. It shows how these things originated in
the school and institution graips in response to definite needs -- not because some
ogre was expe cing to make a profit. The report would have its readers believe

that it is alright to throw rocks but it is very unethical for anyone to throw them
brek. dre cases needed? Refer to Esquire Magazine of April 1941, This is just
after tho Nationel Rules Committee had followed the instructions of the Coaches As-
sociation representatives to "have the guts to take a stand” and ceclare a type

ball and a type backboard as the one toward which all should work, Here is a quota-
tion from the article by a high offieial of the same group: "If these changes (the
small backboard) were motivated altruistically, I wouldn't mind so much," ~------
"Most major courts have already installed glass backboards which give more visi-
bility than the streamlined monstrosities." Associated Press releases flooded the
coumtry with derogatory statements emanating from meetings presided over by o*fi-
cials of the same group and referred to the molded all (which is used and liked by
three-fourths of the high schools and by a majority of the small colleges) as the
"rubber ball" or the "jack-rabbit ball" and the small backboard (which has proved

to be so popular that 16 state high school associations, the larger schools anc
colleges in Canada, many U.S. colleges and army ond navy camps hove already

adopted it) as the "“bean=shaped board", Here is a quotation from one such press
release. It was headed "Patented FareShaped Bank and Rubber Ball Rejected at
Special Parley". Here is a statement in the article: "This leaves a potential
market of more than 5,000,000 for the manufacturer whose procuc. will be the cnly
one anyone may legally use." Aside from the fact that the sm1l board can not be
patented since it was developed by the schools themselves and that there is no limi%
to who can make the board, and some question about the figures, (considering the
fact that the new board and bridgework costs only a fraction of that for the old).
the article is fairly accurate, This and similar articles were broadcast over the
country. Would the report have us believe that only this group has o right to

cast stones ani thet no individual with the facts ot hand should have the temerity
to give out the tformtion on request? ister God, if this is ethics, the ring-
tailed cat is a babboon.