Lawrenees, Kensas
February 3, 1940

lite He Ve Porter,
1l S. LaSille Stes
Chicago, Tllinoise

Dear irs Porters

There wes an error in transoribing the reply I sent you
whieh showld heve read as follows: Om Moe 9 I see difficulty because
you would encourage fouling near the division line. They would forn
e tight wall across there and stop your drive :

If my letter ws ambiguous about the fouls near the
division line being called technical fouls, I say we should not change
that rule, because such a rule would definitely encourage fouling near
the division line. If you permit a personal foul to be called a tech=
nical foul enywhere in the back court you would encourage holding, and
I would be definitely against such a rule.

| I believe I understand what is back of the rule. Too
qualifying « player from the gamee I am still for the four personal
fouls disqmlifying a player because if you ease up on that you would
encourege foulinge

I might say that I believe these questions of yours are
very apropos and should be put on the liste Yes, I answered this
questiomaire so that you might see that in my opinion most of the
changes were meeting with favor. :

I would like to imow what you think regarding the tolerance
of bomee of a basketball, Ithink it is entirely too active, and while
same coaches went to make the goal larger, I believe if we reduce the
resilience that many balls that now hop out will stay ine Then I thought
if we could get sanething on floor resilience we could correct some
terribly floors that are more harmful now than any other part of the