I've really been wondering a lot lately about recent rules changes and whether or not they're actually a good thing. The topic fascinates me, and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about some of these. 1. Previously, when a team was passing in at halfcourt, they had to pass into the frontcourt. Now they can use the whole court. I favor defenses. I'm one of the few who isn't whining about "not enough scoring." To me, it made the game more exciting and fun at that end if the team passing in had a tough time inbounding the ball. Now it's a non-issue. Verdict: Change it back! 2. Previously, a team had 10 seconds to get out of the back court. Now they only have 8. Once again, I favor defenses. Back when it was 10 seconds, this was a meaningless rule. It was rarely called, and even the best defenses couldn't use it as a weapon. Now the rule actually means something, and adds something to the game. Verdict: Good change. 3. Previously, a player could post up as long as he wanted. Now, he can't post for more than 5 seconds without getting called for a violation. This is the dumbest rule ever invented. It was implemented to stop Barkley, Hakeem, and Shaq from doing all their playmaking with their backs to the basket, which the league for some reason views as "boring." First of all, it's not boring. Second of all, it's really lame to actually have to limit an offensive player's movement. I mean, really. what's so unfair about facing away from the basket for 5 seconds? Third, there aren't any good back-to-basket players left anyway, and this rule will only discourage new ones from developing. It's never called, I know, but why should it even be there at all? Verdict: Change it back! 4. Previously, teams could not play zone defenses. Now they can, and a defensive 3 second violation was instituted as well to keep big men from camping in the lane on defense. I love this change, I'll tell you right away. Allowing zones AND adding defensive 3 seconds was visionary. It allows teams to play defense however they want, while still preventing teams from going and finding some 8 foot tall neanderthal with no basketball talent and camping him in the middle. I still believe that a good man-to-man is most effective, but I strongly disagree with the commonly held sentiment that playing zone is somehow "wimping out," or not a legitimate method. There's no mystery to a zone. If I'm an offense, I personally prefer to play against a zone every time anyway. If guys can't score on a zone, it's because they can't shoot. That's their problem, not the defense's. Verdict: Good change. 5. Previously, and offensive player was allowed only two steps after a dribble, then he had to shoot or pass. Now, he can substitute a "hopstep" for his two steps. I'm sorry, I just think this is dumb. I believe Shaq was on the rules committee when this was instituted, and he was a big part of the reason it happened. He was the only one to use it for a little while. Now Kobe uses it every other play, T-Mac uses it, lots of guys use it. And you know what? It's traveling. Give me a break. You let both feet leave the ground and come back down with the ball, it's travelling. Don't get me wrong... I can see where this rule has potential. If there were somehow a way to limit how far/high you could legally hop it would be great, but there simply isn't. I mean, is a ref gonna stop the game and say "that hop-step was 3 inches higher than regulation height; that's a turnover." No way. There's just too much abuse of this rule. It's getting hideous. Verdict: Change it back! I'm sure there's some other stuff I'm forgetting, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Zone Defense is what I call the EURO RULE \ Zones allow peja to sit out sit and fire shots AND allows him to not really play any D while you say . . .if you cannot score . .it is because u cannot shot and it is their problem well I'm pro defense too . . if you cannot stop your man by yourself .. you the wimp. MANO ON MANO D-UP!!!! Next they will put in the trapazoid Lane Rocket River
See, here's how I think about the zone. If you've got a bunch of slow shooters on one team who play a zone, and the other side has a bunch of athetes who can also shoot, those athletes will play a man-to-man, and they will win, because a good man-to-man is more effective than a zone. If, however, the athletes can't shoot, then both sides will have a tough time scoring. Allowing zones punishes teams for having no fundamentals, which is why I'm 100% for allowing zones, while I'm also 100% for playing a man-to-man myself, because I believe it's generally more effective against a fundamentally sound offensive player. I see where you're coming from, though.
With the success of Phoenix and others last year, the zone is here to stay for the time being. I happen to dislike zone because I would rather watch man to man to defense.
You are not pro-defense. You are pro-INDIVIDUAL-defense. That's a big difference. Guys like Mobley didn't think team defense is defense. I think that's a pretty dumb way of thinking.
I have no idea what rule change you are talking about. I think you may be thinking of a move called a 'jump-stop' which has been legal for a very long time in all forms of basketball. A player can take one step, and jump off that leg, and then land on both feet, and jump off the two feet. It is a legit play. Now, the problem is that guys will take the one step and jump off the foot, but they land with a little gallop instead of cleanly landing on both feet. This helps them get that few extra feet to the basket. It is a travel technically, but like most travels it goes uncalled. Francis and Iverson rely on it a lot. If there really was some kind of official rule change on this one, i haven't heard about it, and my apologies. The jump-stop is a weird looking play, and it looks like a travel even if done correctly.
I hate the defensive 3 second call. The coaches can't even figure out what it is and how to avoid it. And the refs are terribly inconsistent with the call because they don't even know how to properly apply the rule. It needs to be cleared up. I still think the zone defenses bog down the game and make for boring games. A 6'8" player should not be able to gain a defensive advantage over a 7'6" player just because he can zone up and the bigger player can only flash in the lane before the call is made. I hate the zone because of that. The refs seem to let that stuff go and let the smaller players park in the paint but they whistle the big men right at 2.9 seconds. A simple adjustment would be to put a line at about 6 foot up into the lower box and only call the 3 seconds there. Don't call the 3 seconds unless a player has both feet in the paint above that box or unless he is partially in the lower box for the 3 seconds. I don't want to see Shaq and Yao just hanging out at the rim. But I don't want to see them penalized for having a foot hanging in the paint at the elbow either. The refs calling and not calling the defensive and offensive 3 seconds is the worst though. Ever seen this play? Offensive player comes into the paint and stands there for over 3 seconds. No call. Defensive player follows him into the paint and stands there while the offensive player moves out of the paint and slowly separates from the defender. Pffffft, defensive 3 seconds. Absolutely terrible. And most of the time, the defensive player may have been in the paint but they have not been separated from the offensive player for the 3 seconds. Like I say, if the coaches don't even understand it..............there's got to be a problem. Also, if you are going to call the 3 second call on the offense then clean up all the banging in the paint area. Don't let the defenders slide by the screens, and bang the screener without a call. Don't let defenders bang a cutter 2 or 3 times as they run through the paint. As far as the zone defense, I don't mind the zone if they start calling the fouls on defensive contact. You can't give the defense the zone and give them all the hacking, slashing, banging, and bumping that defenses got away with in the Bulls/Pistons Knicks/Heat era. That makes for ugly ugly ball. If you are gonna run zone, then you gotta call contact fouls. I personally liked the old school man on man defenses with more of the contact let go and deemed incidental. That makes for the great playoff games and series with teams having to bring the double team, and turning the heat up defensively on each man and with switches. It also allows the game to be a little more physical as it is easier to beat man to man defenses so the way to even up the game is to let the contact go a little more. This means the games flow more and there is more psychological ploys between players instead of coaches just throwing out defensive plays and countering with offensive play calling like football does. Basketball is meant to be a free flowing, creative sport. It is most entertaining in that form. Bring back those 80s Celtic and Lakers playoff and championship series. Great drama and great entertainment and beautiful basketball.
The biggest problem I have with the zone is the ability to deny a good player the ball. I want to see great players with the ball in their hands, not a great player surrounded by 3 mediocre players just standing there.
With all this zone talk, I wonder what we would say if we didn't have a back-to-the-basket player on our team? But the big problem, is as some of you pointed out, is that the refs are so freaking inconsistent with their calls. They'll call touch fouls sometimes, other times they won't. 3 seconds call is just an arbitrary decision. I've seen times when the player hasn't even been in the paint for 3 secs get called for that. Or maybe they'll call it twice in the beginning of the game and forget about it the rest. Then there's the contact in the paint. You'll see a random 'hooking' call here and there but it's almost always being used. Then the one that really pisses me off is when an offensive player creates ALL the contact, but the defensive player has his left toe in the restricted area so the defensive player gets called for the foul! There's NO FOUL if the offensive player creates the contact! All the restricted area does is prevent the offensive player from receiving a foul. That doesn't mean the defensive player automatically gets the foul call. A lot of the rules aren't that bad, but it's really the poor way the refs implement them that makes the problem much worse.
why is it . .that we people say FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND they only talk about one end of the court No one every talks about FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND DEFENSE Zones covers up for folx who are not FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND on defense Rocket River
uhm. . . NO!!!! Switching and talking still happens in MAN on MAN infact that to me is more team than 2-3 No need to talk to your fellow player simply hold down your ZONE and trust them to do the same Artest on T-Mac is individual O'neal picking up T-mac after Yao sets a pick on Artest is Team Defense T-mac coming into the lane with 4 people waiting on him not playing no one in particular is CRAPBall to me Rocket River
I disagree. Zones cover up for slow people with no stamina, they absolutely do not cover up for people who are not fundamentally sound. No no no no no. Man to man is simple. Everyone sticks to their man. On screens or if someone gets beat, you switch it. That's it. Occasional communication is all that's needed. CONSTANT communication is needed in a zone. I have a group of guys I play with, and we've gotten pretty good at a 1-3-1, which we switch to if we think the opposing team is getting too many layups without showing us a jumper. It took a long time to learn how to play it properly, and even now it's a constant shoutfest on defense. For example, the guys on the wings might have it the toughest... in a 1-3-1 they have to be constantly aware of when to play high and when to play low, when to sag in for a board or block, when to stick to their spot and look for the backdoor cut or a jumper off a rebound, and when to help out at the top of the 3-point line when the high man gets dragged over by a dribbler. Say one wing guy is playing high... then I (the low post guy) and the middle guy have to communicate and see who covers the backdoor, and who cuts off the middle of the court. Zones just aren't as simple as you make them sound, and man-to-mans aren't as complicated as you make them sound. Zones are far more complicated, and take a lot more time to learn.
perhaps i have over simplified however I still think Man on Man is better to watch So you are saying your prefer to cover for the Slow athletes with no Stamina than to let the athletes be Athletes? and Looking at most zones .. .esp in the NBA alot of folx are not Defensively Fundamentally sound and it allows for them to 'hide' in the zone Rocket river
On the other hand, Man-only defensive rule allows teams to hide poor offensive players. In the past, teams simply pull an offensive liability away from action, and you have to waste a defender to follow him. That going to the extreme was how ISO ball was invented. If I am not mistaken, the getting rid of illegal defense was motivated by too much ISO in the 90s. I like allowing zone because that makes defensive strategy a real part of the game. In the past, the defense was passive, just using individual abilities to react to the opposing offense.
Huh? There are a multitude of ways to defend a screen/roll. As far as getting beat, have you never heard of help defense? It's not as simple as just 'switching'. Jeez. There's no strategy in a man-to-man? So the Pistons, Knicks, and Supersonics didn't have a strategy? What?
I think the hop-step rule was a way for the league to say, "yeah, I know. we allow players to travel. here's an attempt at providing a justification for it."
All man to man means is that you can't double a man that doesn't have the ball. There are plenty of strategy in man to man defense. No good defensive teams use the zone regulary.
I voted against zone defenses. Hakeem wouldn't have been as great if zone was legal in his time. Yao would probably be a lot greater if zones (and dbl-teaming players who don't have the ball) were illegal. I agree that zones allow a talented player to be squelched by having three goons triple team him before he can get the ball. Zones stifle talent. Without zones, offensive sets are able to flow more smoothly and the game is more of a stategic chess match. With legal zones, strategies suffer and play is more of a free-for-all. It used to be that, watching the game, you could repeatedly say, "oooh - that was a smart play!". We don't see nearly as many "smart plays" as we used to. The result is less of a thinking-mans game, and more of a sloppy streetball game.
Without zones, we'd be even further behind our international counterparts when the time comes to compete with them.
