u/HereForVintageNBA — reddlx

There have been a couple of recent posts on zone defense rules here in the past couple of days - see What was the purpose of the old illegal defense rule (no zone/help defense allowed)? and "The Heresy of Zone Defense" by Dave Hickey, 1995 - so I thought I'd share this fun story.

Zone defenses were banned from the start of the NBA, the penalty being first a warning, followed by a technical foul for subsequent violations. In the 1978 season, referee Richie Powers called a technical foul on the Atlanta Hawks for employing a zone. But after the game, Powers stated that even though the Hawks had broken the rule, he disagreed with the rule, saying that he believed zone defenses were "admirable" and should be allowed.

Fast forward a couple weeks to March 1st, 1978, and Powers was back to refereeing a game for the Hawks. This time, though, Powers decided to make it up to the Hawks and, prior to tip-off, notified both the coaches and team captains that he would permit zone defenses that night.

The next day, the League came down hard on Powers, fining him $2,500 and suspending him without pay for three games. Commissioner Larry O'Brien said of the fine and suspension:

> Powers’ unprecedented action to intentionally ignore a playing rule represents a flagrant disregard for his responsibility as an N.B.A. official. No single individual in the N.B.A., including myself, has the authority to alter the rules pertaining to the conduct of the game. The responsibility to consider and recommend rule changes rests solely with the league's Competition and Rules Committee. The job of a referee is to enforce the existing playing rules to the best of his ability, not to arbitrarily set aside those rules to suit his views.

In response to the punishment, Powers retorted:

> It's an antiquated rule. Maybe this will help get changed.

I've stumbled upon a couple of references to a running series of articles that were published in the YMCA's New Era newsletter back in 1894 discussing whether basketball was "too dangerous" to be played by the nation's youth.

The NYT article "The Next Big Thing" from October 31, 2008 mentions:

> Some time ago, a series appeared in a newsletter under the title “Is Basket-Ball a Danger?” In it, several correspondents wrung their hands over the game’s miasmic influence on children, the unruly behavior it seemed to inspire. ... The only surprise is the year the series ran: 1894.

And in Dave Hickey's article "The Hersey of Zone Defense" he notes:

> James Naismith was enlisted in December of [1891] to design such a game. So he evolved some Guiding Principles. Combining the most democratic, least territorial aspects of rugby and lacrosse, he invented basketball—and succeeded well beyond his wildest dreams. Within three years, literally thousands of gymnasiums, in every corner of the nation, smelled like teen spirit. Not long thereafter, the YMCA newsletter New Era began running a series entitled "Is Basketball a Danger?" It posed the following questions: Was basketball getting too rough? Was it too exciting for America's youth? Did it incite unruly behavior in its fans and participants? Did kids neglect their studies to "play it all the time"? And was it, therefore, losing the pedagogical aura of gentlemanly American sport and becoming professionalized? The answer to all these questions, in 1894, was Yes.

I'm interested in reading these, but I can't find them online for the life of me. Has anyone read these, or know where I can find them?

Thanks