Rules Changes? Bring 'Em On - new National Basketball Association rules for the 2001-02 season are welcome - Brief Article

Basketball Digest, Summer, 2001 by Brett Ballantini

THE HAND-WRINGING HAS begun in earnest. Overnight, the doomsayers who have been bemoaning the state of the NBA have transformed into defenders of the faith, that being 80-76 games.

The new rules the NBA has approved for the 2001-02 season are pretty straight-forward. Offenses have eight seconds, not 10, to cross midcourt. Incidental contact--essentially hand-checking--will no longer be whistled as a foul. Illegal defenses are gone, permitting zone defense. Finally, a three-second rule will now be enforced on defense as well as offense.

But back to the doomsayers. Predictions of 60-point games, scrubs getting more shots than stars, and player fatigue already have been made. New York Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy, the smartest man never to win an NBA title, says with sufficient snottiness, "If they put the new rules in, I would be disappointed if any team scored 80 points on us."

I don't buy it. At least 75% of the league plays basketball that would put even Dick Vitale to sleep. The new rules will force a change, and not for the worse.

The major complaints about the NBA are pretty universal. The game is too physical. Fundamental play outside of the Utah Jazz is nonexistent. "Offense" is disguised as four players watching a superstar such as Allen Iverson break down his defender. In that context, anything that encourages better team play, stronger fundamentals, and a faster tempo is all right with me.

Even a minor change like forcing offenses to cross midcourt in eight seconds could have an effect--subconscious or not--on teams to push the ball. Plus, a shorter amount of time to get the ball up the floor should result in more effective traps and presses and more incentive to play the whole court.

As for zone defense, how can't you love it? The illegal defense rule is preposterous--it's subjective, it slows the game down, and it confuses fans. Rules that fans can't grasp have no business in the NBA. Moderating the zone by preventing a huge player from standing right in front of the basket probably isn't necessary--it isn't in college ball--but at least it has some logic in that it's consistent with the offensive three-second rule.

But zones aren't great simply because illegal defense is a dumb rule. The zone forces the hands of offenses. It's assumed that offense is down because defenses are so good, or because players are younger and offensive fundamentals are weak. But what's overlooked is that offenses are overmanaged and in a sense, underemphasized. Defense has taken over, and one way to shift the balance is by giving defenses more options. If nothing else, zones will be a wake-up call to offenses.

If the San Antonio Spurs play a stifling zone, well, you'd better get your ass up the court faster and beat it. You'd better put a premium on cutting, picks, and shooting. Don't forget, although scoring is down, players are shooting and making more threes. Zones will never be able to collapse to the degree that the hand-wringers are predicting, where any drive into the paint will be a death sentence. And even the best extended zone is vulnerable to a 10 to 15-foot jumper. Zones will force offenses to innovate; shooting, dribbling, and passing again will be essential court skills.

Some say the zone means that lesser players will get more shots. Hold on a second. Karl Malone and John Stockton in Utah run the pick and roll--a beautiful play--to perfection. Everyone knows it's coming, and no one can stop it. So next year, a zone means John Crotty gets 20 shots a game? That doesn't make sense. Defenders double-team the ball a ton now anyway, and double-teams are just pieces of a zone already.

With these rules changes, we have a shot at seeing more exciting ball, stuff the NBA hasn't seen in 20 years or more. Without them, well, let's just not think about that.