While we're all waiting to see who the Rockets get as coach... and when... I'd enjoy reading others comments/opinions of what you think has improved the game of BB over the last decade or so and what you think has hurt it. And what your suggested remedies might be. No doubt these kinds of complaints have been thrashed out here in one form another before, but so what? Just for the sake of discussion. Here's my short list: 1. Zone defense - Bad idea to reinforce the idea of parity. Teams that can't play good defense otherwise can seem to be better at defense this way. I'm for going back to the way it was before. I know it could be argued that without zone defense the game was being ruined with too much one on one play - i.e., isolation plays for guards in particular. But the NBA can't seem to find that happy medium. When hand checking was allowed guards had a much harder time getting around their man to go to the basket. When that was made illegal it became too easy for player to get to the basket or get a foul. Surely there is a better way than zone defense. (I wonder if Dallas would have had the record they did this year, if it wasn't for zone defense being allowed?) 2. The 3-point line - I have somewhat mixed feelings about this one because it does add an element of drama to the game. But it has led to a lot more standing around on the perimeter AT the 3-point line because of that extra point you may get from making a shot from that position. I'd try a season without it if I'd try a season WITH zone defense. 3. Jump ball rule - I think it is not called properly in a lot of cases. Too many times a player will have the ball wrapped up with both arms, hunched over the ball and an opposing player will just happen to have been able to get his had tangled up in such a way that he is "touching" the ball and jump ball gets called. Or he may be behind the player who is hunched over the ball and very quickly reach over that players shoulder to get his hand somewhat on the ball -- again jump ball gets called. I don't know, it just seems misapplied in too many cases. 4. Traveling (or lack of the call) - I've always been puzzled how it is allowed that players can take 3 or 4 steps to the basket, without dribbling, from a distance equal to the free throw line, dunk the ball and not be called for traveling. And yet, a player can get called for traveling for shuffling his feet while holding the ball. Too inconsistent for me. 5. Fouling out / number of fouls - I think there may be a better way to handle or control the number of fouls in a game besides kicking out the stars, sometimes early on in a game (or having them have to sit on the bench due to early fouls). Maybe just deduct 2 points for every foul. Surely there are some creative people out there who could come up with a better system than what we've got. 6. Last but not least (and related to #3-#5) the OFFICIALS! - There are WAY too many bad calls in the game that everyone wants to say is just the human part of the game. But geez, isn't it a little backward to have some of these calls so blatantly bad that almost everyone watching TV sees it but the refs. can't see it?? The announcers see it and say "THAT was a bad call!" It leads to a belief that maybe the refs. have a vested interest in trying to control a game by their decisions. I'm sure I could list a few more here with some thought, but maybe others will post their pet peeves about what has hurt the game as it is currently being played, like maybe lack of fundamentals compared to 20 years ago, for instance?
Something has to be called in that situation. It's either a foul or a jumpball. You can just let one player keep reaching in and trying to grab the ball and not call something.
Wow, I agree with almost every point you make. Except for the "deduct points for excessive fouls" idea. Fouling Out-I don't think a player should be kicked out of the game with 6 fouls. Maybe have a sort of "penalty box" for basketball. The player sits for a certain amount of time for every foul over 4 perhaps. Then again, that usually happens anyway with coaches sitting players after their 3rd foul in the 1st half etc. That's a toughie. Traveling-Traveling calls are among the most mis-called fouls in the game. How can a player take one dribble, pick up the ball, then hop with both feet, then JUMP AGAIN to take his shot without being called for traveling? At the same time, a player at the top of the key can give a simple ball fake before driving to the hole and be called for traveling? Weird. The 3 Point Line-The 3 point line needs to go back to the pre-94 spot. If I'm not mistaken, it was originally brought in to make end of quarter and end of game shots more exciting, not to be incoorperated into team plays. Too many players take too many bad attempts (see EG, Antoine Walker). The "And 1" Influence-In last 10 years, I think the NBA has become more style over substance than ever before. Too much showboating, too much stylen' and profilen' after every dunk, usually by sub-par players. Too much emphasis on one-on-one match ups. "Where have you gone, Hakeem Olajuwon".
I disagree with your point #5. In fact I think they are too reluctant to put stars in foul trouble. My number 1 complaint about the game is that they treat different players differently. Just call the game by the book and whoever wins, wins. If that means that Shaq and whoever is guarding/doubling him foul out in the first 6 mins, then so be it. Stars will adapt to play within the rules, or they shouldn't have been stars to begin with. This aslo applies to rediculous things like when a guy falls for a pump fake, jumps up, reaches back and blocks the shot anyway. That should not be called a foul, but it is. Cat did that exact thing to Kobe, and not only was it called a foul, but the Color guy (Tom Tolbert) said that it should be called a foul despite there being no contact as punishment for falling for a pump fake. The rules are fine, they just need to be enforced fully and fairly.
Gee, I didn't realize this topic would be thought of as so far afield in the other forum as to be moved... Oh, well. I guess I don't look at the other forums enough to know when I should post where. Quote from StupidMoniker: I agree. I think you've said what I would have said additionally, had I had a good thinking cap on. But both happen. I remember games in the '94-'95 season when Drexler got into foul trouble in the first 5 minutes of a game mainly because there was one official that just seemed to have it in for him. That's what I was remembering, I guess. Fans come to see good players play and compete, not sit on the bench. By changing the rules about fouling out, Clyde wouldn't have necessarily had to "sit" because of the number of fouls he got in such a short period of time.
A weird rule change I would like to see is multiple foul calls on one play. Say a player goes in for a lay up and three defenders hack him, assess a foul to each of the three. Same two free throws, everything on the court stays the same as it currently is. The only differences being thee people get one foul each and the team picks up three team fouls. I think this would promote more one-on-one defending and less reaching and hacking. I also think this would speed up the game as players would have more fouls called on them ( though the same number so stopages in the game) so they would have less fouls to give. Personally I hate the parade of foul shooting att he end of a game.
I agree with most of your points, except this: Isn't that a contradictory sentence? Your thinking is exactly like that of Steve Francis: only individual skills count. Basketball, the last time I check, is still a TEAM sport. I don't understand why people say that playing good zone defense doesn't count as playing good defense. In fact, I think (no prove, just an opinion) the phenomenon of the NBA we are witnessing, namely, individualistic selfish style of game, is directly the result of the "illegal defense" rule through the years. I, for one, am glad that they did away with it. The abolition of illegal defense rule not only enhances the team concept in basketball, it also makes defensive strategy an integral part of the game. Sounds better than the passive man-only defense.
as someone who plays and coaches under normal (international) rules, I never understood why Tech fouls don't get counted as personal fouls, sure give them the boot if they get two (which is also possible under international rules) but surely they should count torwards their 6 personal fouls. and what's the deal with offensive fouls in the playoffs, the refs have really set an ugly preceedent that if you flop you draw the foul, what a crock!!! and don't get me started on travels, is there really a travel rule in the NBA, why not just eliminate bouncing the ball. and the thing that really really really really really pisses me off is calls being based on the status of a player or the number of years played in the league, if it is foul it is a foul whether it is Tim Duncan or Jason Collins, find me the rule where it says if an All-star has the air around them touched by another player it is a foul, but if the same thing happens to a rookie it's a no call or likely a charge. as someone who has refereed basketball at a decent level it would be much easier for the refs, if it was refereed straight up, with a consistent rule system (including a travel rule that is actually policed) for all players.
My 'beef' is that a player can decapitate a player in the last seconds and that's letting the 'player's decide the outcome of the game'. Malarkey. Let the players play by the rules and the best players/teams win. Also, paint over the three point line and paintgun whoever allowed Zones.
Easy: I stand somewhat corrected. If you're looking strictly at my wording, then yes it seems contradictory. Let me clarify the wording to reflect more of what I intended. What I meant to convey is that teams that play more zone defense this season, because it is allowed, are doing it for a reason. Now that could be a couple of reasons or both. First, they may feel it conserves energy on the defensive end. After all, a zone allows for a LOT less motion and more "standing around", protecting an "area" rather than a man. You don't have to chase a player all over the court if he runs around. You just have to guard him in your area of the zone and then let the next player pick him up as he moves out of your area. But secondly, it could be that BECAUSE you can defend as I just described you will play "better" defense just because of less effort required on any one player's part. It is true that even prior to zone defense being allowed, players played "help the helper" defense which can be argued is a version of zone defense, but true zone defense allows for more collapsing on the whole area going to the basket than generally happens in man to man coverage. If there is a lot of standing around in man to man defense that is dictated by the offense having little or no motion. Basically, man to man requires more effort and individual skill. In the same way the 3-point line is farther out than in college, zone defense is "easier" to play than man to man. Let the NBA represent a higher level of skill than college, otherwise, scrap the NBA and just have college basketball. SmeggySmeg: Great "pissed off" points. My wife says foul calling has gotten so inconsistently worse over the years that she has lost a lot of interest in the NBA. Some nights you'd think you were watching wrestling instead of basketball. Eliminate dribbling? Great idea! Eliminate the passing! Institute hiking instead of an inbounds pass, let the players wear pads and the ball doesn't have to go through the net -- just get it past the plane of the backboard. xiki: Right on! That's been a real grabber for me, too. If a foul isn't a foul at the end of the game it isn't a foul any other time and vice versa.
I would like to see the NBA just simply use the rules basketball is played everywhere else (i.e. international rules). That's all.
GMNot, Thanks for the clarification. I still think that getting rid of the illegal defense rule is good for basketball. While zone defense requires less physical energy and less physical skills in individual players, it is not an "easier" way to play good defense. It takes reads (court vision) and good decision making. This is especially true when you are dealing with offensive talent on the NBA level. That's why few teams use it extensively. But to allow teams to have it in their defensive arsenal is good. It also makes ISO offenses less effective, which is good too. The 3-pt line is a tough one. Let's forget the dramatic effect for a momnet. On the one hand, I agree that the 3 makes offenses stagnant to some degree. There's a psychological effect that makes the perimeter players want to stand around behind the line. It also reduces the incentive for shooting the midrange jumper. On the other hand, the 3-pt shot is necessary for the shot clock. Without the line, defenses would tighten up the interior and dare the perimeter offense to take low percentage long shots. So, it will be a lot more difficult to work the ball inside. With the shot clock on, you'd see ugly rushed shots bricking left and right. So without the 3, you'd have to allow the offense more time to work for a better shot, thereby slowing down the game.
Easy, Points taken. It is academic at this point since I don't think the league rules are changing next season. I guess only time will tell. If the league changes the rule or rescinds it within a couple of seasons, then it will be an indication that it went too far in controlling ISO plays. Your comments about the 3 point line are good ones. In fact, you touch on something that maybe zone defenses will help to change... that is, that most NBA players can't hit the mid-range jumper consistently. Many of the older players, from the last NBA generation have pointed out how players these days can't really shoot the mid-range jump shot well, when in fact it is one of the most effective weapons a player can have. Because of this zone defenses can/will play further away from the perimeter and closer to the paint until they face a team that DOES hit mid-range jumpers effectively. In the end the rule changes are almost always a toss of the dice in an effort to correct an abberation of the game. So I'll give the NBA credit for trying. Officiating on the other hand... ... I don't think they've improved that much since I started watching the NBA in the early 80's.
I feel that they are getting worse, to a degree that it threatens the credibility of the game. They need to fix the officiating or the game will evantually lose its popularity.
