Discussion:
Illegal defense
(too old to reply)
suleimanmd
2011-04-02 18:18:02 UTC
Permalink
I was looking at the history of rules changes , and it looks like it
was around 2001 -2002 when it was removed form the rules.

I can't recall the driving force behind the change at the time, but I
really hate the zone defense , and wish they reinstate the illegal
defense rule,at times, the zone made some average defensive teams look
like the bad boys of 1990 < cough... Mavericks... cough >

The zone was a college defense , and in my humble opinion , should
never have graduated into the NBA..

Of course the main reason I hate the zone :-it is an obstacle to
strong ;athletic point guards getting to the rim at well.
VicXnews
2011-04-02 18:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by suleimanmd
I can't recall the driving force behind the change at the time
Shaq
Terraholm
2011-04-02 22:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by suleimanmd
I can't recall the driving force behind the change at the time
Shaq
Not shaq.

That is GOP like... repeating the lie by shaq often enough made it so...
;-) The facts show otherwise.

One of the main people advocating eliminating illegal defense rules was
Jerry West.
The lakers voted FOR zones, 3 of their main west rivals at the time,
Blazers, Spurs and Kings voted AGAINST it.
The vote was 24 to 4...The only other vote against was Riley/Miami.


This article is from 1996 and the argument had been going on since Shaq
was in diapers...

A TWILIGHT ZONE : THE NBA HAS THIS RULE ABOUT ILLEGAL DEFENSE, BUT WHO
CAN EXPLAIN IT, AND WILL IT EVER GO AWAY?

Link to this page
Byline: Scott Wolf Daily News Staff Writer

It takes about 1,000 words to define the NBA's meticulously crafted
version of an illegal defense.

The authors of this less-than-historical document had reason for their
long-windedness, writing with more than the integrity of the game on
their minds.

``The owners told us to come up with something or they would,'' said
Dallas Mavericks coach Dick Motta, one of the founding fathers of the
illegal-defense rules.

But 14 seasons after it was instituted, it often takes less than a
sentence for NBA luminaries to express their sentiment on the rule.

And opinions throughout the league are not universal.

``Get rid of it,'' says former NBA great and TV analyst Rick Barry.

``It's saving the league,'' retorts Houston Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich.

Why are opinions so divided on an issue that practically no one except
an X's and O's freak really understands?

It often comes down to whether a coach believes the NBA could thrive and
survive using a zone defense.

The NBA has never allowed zone defenses, but prior to the 1981-82
season, did not spell out in such detail where defensive players had to
be positioned or in what manner they could double-team an opponent.

One rule, enforced during the '60s and '70s, said a player had to always
remain within six feet of his opponent. It proved to be unrealistic,
however, and with criticism mounting it was decided defensive rules
should be updated.

The move also proved timely, coinciding with the NBA's Magic-Bird
renaissance in popularity.

So a committee that included Motta, Phoenix Suns coach Cotton
Fitzsimmons and then-Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson came up with the
current illegal-defense rules.

Among its basic tenets, players are not allowed to double-team from the
weak side (the side of the court without the ball) to the strong side
(the side with the ball) unless they are double-teaming someone with the
ball.

The court was also divided into three invisible zones. They cross the
court at the top of the key, the free-throw line and the middle of the key.

There are also three zones that run length-wise, one on each side of the
key and one through the middle.

Confused? Just remember that defensive players must remain in certain
zones on the court, depending on where the ball is. A player has to be
within one zone of the man they are guarding.

Naturally, like most complicated rules, there is an asterisk. A defender
is permitted to be two areas away from his zone for a time span of 2.9
seconds.

In real terms, when a player leaves his zone, he's usually trying to
cheat to help out a teammate or anticipate a pass into the low post.
Unless the ball arrives around the same time, or within 2.9 seconds, the
referee can call an illegal-defense violation.

The call itself is so anticipated that coaches rarely complain and
almost never protest the technical foul assessed on the second violation
in a game.

``You figure they'll get one, we get one; it'll even out,'' said Nelson,
recently a coach with the Knicks. ``You live with it.''

But it's getting harder to live with for a growing number of coaches.

They detest the way players can intentionally be isolated from the
action. Or the strategy that has a team placing its journeyman center
above the 3-point line, just to draw Hakeem Olajuwon 25 feet from the
basket as a defender.

``No one plays basketball. It's all isolation,'' said Jerry West, Lakers
executive vice president.

So why not allow a zone, just like in college basketball?

``(The NBA is) afraid if they take it out, teams will suck in the
defense because shooting is so lousy,'' Barry said. ``They're afraid it
would make the game an outside game. It would force coaches to be more
creative.

``The coaching in the NBA is so much easier (than in college). You know
what they're going to do on defense. You don't have to worry about a
1-3-1 zone, a box-and-one, a triangle-and-two.''

Portland Trail Blazers coach P.J. Carlesimo, a former college coach at
Seton Hall and an assistant on the original Olympic Dream Team, believes
the NBA should permit zone defenses. He cited the 1992 Games as an
example because international rules allow zones.

``To me, the illegal defense is contrived,'' Carlesimo said. ``The Dream
Team had no trouble with zones or a different set of rules.''

You would think such statements might ignite a movement in the league to
reform the current rules. But for every Carlesimo or Indiana's Larry
Brown (another former college coach at UCLA and Kansas) who favors some
change, there are others like Tomjanovich or Milwaukee's Mike Dunleavy,
who prefer the present setup.

``It creates spacing on the floor so you can drive to the basket.
Otherwise you'll just see outside jump shots,'' Tomjanovich said. ``What
would happen to Dr. J or those guys? You would never see any of those
moves.''

While no immediate changes are expected, it is significant that two
architects of the original plan - Motta and Nelson - favor a relaxation
of the system. Both support allowing zone defenses - only if the
24-second clock was increased, so teams would have more time to attack a
tightly packed formation.

What particularly bothers Motta is that many teams try to get away with
zone defenses now, content to only be penalized by a technical foul.

``Our teams are zoning now. Rule or no rule. We're not allowed to use
the word `zone' but it's a zone,'' Motta said. ``The game irritates me some.

``As we made the rule, we didn't envision that it would be a two- and
three-man game. It rubs against the whole team concept. I think it's
outlived its usefulness.''

One reason a change is unlikely is a consensus that the league is
worried its superstars would be hampered by zone defenses.

Perhaps as influential as any of the coaches is Rod Thorn, the NBA's
senior vice president in charge of operations. He praises the effects of
the illegal-defense rule.

``I think it's the only thing that protects the integrity of what we're
trying to do,'' Thorn said. ``It gives you a chance to see a one-on-one
matchup.''

For any serious rule alteration to take place, the NBA's competition
committee would have to suggest the changes. As Thorn points out,
coaches are not always a strong presence on the committee. It is
frequently comprised of general managers and even has included owners.


Barry believes the NBA will probably never allow a zone, because it is
too dramatic a change. He doesn't think coaches would appreciate having
to install more sophisticated offenses or that players would favor a
constrained system.

``Today's game with today's athletes, the last thing they want is set
plays,'' Barry said.

That much is a fact.

Clippers center Brian Williams believes all double-teaming, with or
without the ball, should be outlawed and only strict man-to-man defenses
utilized.

``You should play everyone straight up,'' Williams said. ``Then again,
what do I know? I think there should be a jump ball after every basket.''

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+TWILIGHT+ZONE+%3A+THE+NBA+HAS+THIS+RULE+ABOUT+ILLEGAL+DEFENSE,+BUT...-a083949277


==============================
Terraholm
2011-04-02 21:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by suleimanmd
I was looking at the history of rules changes , and it looks like it
was around 2001 -2002 when it was removed form the rules.
I can't recall the driving force behind the change at the time, but I
really hate the zone defense , and wish they reinstate the illegal
defense rule,at times, the zone made some average defensive teams look
like the bad boys of 1990< cough... Mavericks... cough>
The zone was a college defense , and in my humble opinion , should
never have graduated into the NBA..
Of course the main reason I hate the zone :-it is an obstacle to
strong ;athletic point guards getting to the rim at well.
http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html

Can you explain why the Select Committee on Playing Rules decided on
each of the following rules changes and why the committee feels each
change will help the game?

Eliminating illegal defense guidelines:

Jackson: The illegal defense guidelines needed to be eliminated because
they have become problematic. They are problematic for our fans, who
don't understand the rule. They are problematic for the officials, who
admittedly have had difficulty administering the rule. And finally, our
teams have used the guidelines in a way that produces isolation
basketball. Teams identify areas on the floor that they can use to their
advantage in a given offensive matchup and this produces a real sameness
of play amongst a lot of our teams. With isolation basketball, a lot of
our teams began standing around. There is little player movement, there
is little ball movement, and there is a decreasing amount of fastbreak
opportunities. These developments began with the misuse of the illegal
defense guidelines and therefore they needed to be eliminated. By
eliminating them, our desired result is to get a game that once again is
based on passing, cutting, player movement, and ball movement. A game
that hopefully produces fastbreak opportunities because that is the way
our game should be played.

A defensive three-second violation that would prohibit a player on
defense from being in the lane for more than three seconds, except when
the player is defending an opponent in the lane area:

Jackson: When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number
one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a Shaquille
O'Neal, Theo Ratliff, Shawn Bradley, or Dikembe Mutombo, and simply put
him in the middle of the lane to camp out and prohibit drives to the
basket and encourage low-percentage shots. In an effort to help
alleviate that concern, the defensive three-seconds violation was
recommended. Prohibiting a player from being in the lane for longer than
three seconds will hopefully prevent a player from simply camping in the
lane for the entire possession.


====================

The old rules were ridiculously complicated, hard to call harder to
teach, and still did not really force man to man.


======================
What the "can not stay in the paint 3 sec without guarding someone"
replaced:


Old illegal defense rules:

The free throw lane is divided into the following areas:
(1) The "outside" lanes consist of two 2' X 19' areas which
are adjacent and parallel to the college lane.
(2) The "inside" lane consists of the 12' X 19' area which
is the college lane.
(3) The "posted-up" areas consist of two 3' X 19' areas
which are adjacent and parallel to the free throw lane lines. A hashmark
on the baseline denotes this area.

b. If an offensive player's positioning permits, a defender may be
positioned in the "outisde" lane with no time limit.
c. Defenders may be in a position within the "inside" lane for a
tight 2.9 seconds. They must re-establish a position with both feet out
of the "inside" lane, to be legally clear of the restricted area.
d. A defender may be positioned within the "inside" lane with no
time limitations, if an offensive player is positioned within the 3'
"posted-up" area.
e. An imaginary line, which extends from the baseline to the
midcourt line, divides the frontcourt into two equal parts; one is the
"weakside" and the other is the "strongside."
(1) The "strongside" is the side of the frontcourt where the
ball is located.
(2) The "weakside" is the side of the frontcourt which is
opposite the "strongside."
f. A defender may cross from the "weakside" to the "strongside"
only to (1) aggressively double-team the ball, or (2) to pick up a man
who is open because of a double-team on the ball. The defender may not
rotate toward a double-team until the ball is released on a pass.
g. An offensive player may not be double-teamed by a "weakside"
defender, if he does not have the ball in his possession.
h. An offensive player who has the ball in his possession may be
aggressively double-teamed by defenders from anywhere on the floor. There is
no time limit that a double-team must remain established.
i. If a defender goes from a "weakside" to "strongside" for the
purpose of establishing a double-team, he must follow a direct path to
the ball.
j. The frontcourt is divided into the following three defensive
areas:
(1) The Upper Defensive Area (6' X 50') extends from the upper
tip-of-circle extended to the free throw line extended.
(2) The Middle Defensive Area (6' X 50') extends from the free
throw line extended to the bottom tip-of-circle extended.
(3) The Lower Defensive Area (13' X 50') extends from the bottom
tip-of-circle extended to the baseline.
k. If an offensive player is positioned above the tip-of-circle
extended, "weakside" or "strongside," his defender must position himself
above the free throw line extended (Upper Defensive Area). A defender
may go below the free throw line extended (1) to aggressively
double-team the ball,
(2) to defend an offensive player(s) who is open because of a
double-team on the ball, or (3) as a normal reaction to a "ball fake."
The defender must
return to a legal position immediately, or double-team on-the-ball if
the ball is not released on the pass.
l. A defender may always position himself one defensive area away
from the offensive player he is guarding.
m. If an offensive player is positioned in the Upper or Middle
Defensive Area, "weakside" or "strongside," his defender may "flash" to
the Middle or Lower Defensive Area, respectively, for a tight 2.9 seconds.
n. If an offensive player, "weakside" or "strongside," relocates
to a position above the tip-of-circle extended, his defender must assume
a legal position (1) in the Upper Defensive Area, (2) aggressively
double-team the
ball, or (3) defend an offensive player(s) who is open because of a
double-team on-the-ball. There is no time limit. The movement to a legal
position must commence immediately.
o. When a "strongside" offensive player is positioned below the
free throw line extended, his defender must establish a position (1)
below the
free throw line extended, (2) double-team the ball, or (3) defend an
offensive player(s) who is open because of a double-team on-the-ball.
There is no time limit. The movement to a legal position must commence
immediately.
p. The definition of a double-team is when two or more defenders
aggressively pursue an offensive player with the ball and obtain a
position close enough for a jump ball to occur. Restrictions on a
double-team are in force as soon as the ball crosses midcourt.
q. A legal switch shall be interpreted as two defenders switching
defensive assignments on two offensive players at an "area of intersection."
If the defensive switch takes place in the free throw lane, the
defenders must take at least one step into the "inside" lane.
r. A defender whose offensive player relocates from the
"weakside" to the "strongside" must (1) follow him immediately, (2)
switch to another offensive player at an "area of intersection," or (3)
double-team the ball.
There is no time limit. The movement to a legal position must commence
immediately.
s. A defender whose offensive player relocates from "strongside"
to "weakside" must (1) follow him immediately, (2) switch to another
offensive player at an "area of intersection," or (3) double-team the
ball. There is no time limit. The movement to a legal position must
commence immediately.
t. As the ball is being advanced across the midcourt line a
defender responsible for guarding an opponent who is positioned on the
"strongside" and is positioned below the free throw line extended must
(1) position himself below the free throw line extended, or (2)
aggressively double-team the ball. His movement to one of these legal
positions must commence immediately upon the ball crossing the mid-court
line. There is no time limit.
u. Failure to comply with articles (k) through (t) above will
result in an illegal defense violation.
Terraholm
2011-04-02 22:31:07 UTC
Permalink
by Dr Jack Ramsay

The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
There were too many isolations on one or two offensive players while the
others stood on the opposite side of the floor pointing out to officials
what they perceived to be illegal defenses of the opponent.

Basketball is supposed to be a five-man game; isolations make for an
inactive and unattractive product that doesn’t involve all five players.
Watching Vince Carter dominate a game doesn’t give fans the opportunity
to see Charles Oakley, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark, or Tracy Murray
perform, and that’s a real shame.

In addition, there has always been a cloud of uncertainty among players,
coaches and officials about the rules regarding illegal defense. Plus,
the fans have no clue. Most don’t understand what is or isn’t legal. And
anything that is difficult to understand, like law, physics, or
medicine, must be no good and should be eliminated. The term “illegal
defense” is gone after this season.

The NBA was the only league to put a limit on the kind of defense a team
could play. No other level of basketball requires a team to play its
defenders in certain parts of the playing area. In the Cuban Basketball
League, for example, defenders are allowed to play anywhere as long as
they stay on the island – make sense to me.

So then why did the NBA prohibit zone defenses in the first place? The
league banned the zone defense in January of 1947, halfway through its
first year of its existence. I was coaching a game between the
Pittsburgh Ironmen and the Pawtucket Fightin’ Irish at the time. Both
teams used zones and the score was 13 to 9, with sharp shooting Orville
McGee leading the way with 4 points. League commissioner Colonel Eli
Pounds spoke with me after the contest about cutting my salary back to
$22.50 for lack of attendance. He said that the league was in trouble
and that he was considering changes to the game, including banning zones
and allowing Negroes to play. I told the Colonel that I would be happy
to take $22.50, but I’ve regretted those zone changes to this very day.

Most of the fears about zone defense are groundless.
The rule change will certainly not hurt anybody. A team can put two
defenders on Allen Iverson and play three on the rest of the team, but
why would they? There’s no way three men can guard Dikembe Mutumbo, Eric
Snow, George Lynch, and Tyrone Hill – there’s too much offensive
firepower there. Larry Brown will figure out a way to make it happen –
he’s one of the best point guards in the league.

I was talking to Lakers coach Phil Jackson on Wednesday night, and he
was worried that teams would put three defenders on Shaq under the new
rules. I told him they probably would, and if Shaq stands still, he will
have a problem. But if Shaq moves the ball around and his teammates are
aware of what’s happening, Shaq will kill the defense. Then Phil said,
“We aren’t paying Shaquille $20 million a year to pass the damn ball,
you stupid, old fool!” And that was my point exactly, I think.

I have high hopes for the changes to have a positive impact on the game.
It’s been a long time coming. The game should be very interesting and
appealing to watch now that we’ve removed all of the crazy hoopla, wacky
shenanigans, and other flim-flam that just get the young people all
riled up anyway.
Terraholm
2011-04-02 22:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terraholm
by Dr Jack Ramsay
The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
Rest of the committee besides Ramsay was:

Jerry West, Jerry Colangelo, Zo Mourning Theo Ratliff (those two were
the players reps and both out for the season), Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry,
Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and Ed Rush.
suleimanmd
2011-04-02 23:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terraholm
Post by Terraholm
by Dr Jack Ramsay
The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
Jerry West, Jerry Colangelo, Zo Mourning Theo Ratliff (those two were
the players reps and both out for the season),  Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry,
Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and Ed Rush.
I really wasn't confused on illegal defense, I saw it when it happened
most of the time, it was not nuclear science , it's either you are
guarding your man or not. But I guess Vic is right , they needed a way
to deal with Shaq. I see more three seconds missed now than ever
recall illegal defense called wrong.
Terraholm
2011-04-03 00:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by suleimanmd
Post by Terraholm
Post by Terraholm
by Dr Jack Ramsay
The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
Jerry West, Jerry Colangelo, Zo Mourning Theo Ratliff (those two were
the players reps and both out for the season), Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry,
Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and Ed Rush.
I really wasn't confused on illegal defense, I saw it when it happened
most of the time, it was not nuclear science , it's either you are
guarding your man or not.
The rules to force man to man was rocket science. And the rocket did not
work.
Post by suleimanmd
But I guess Vic is right , they needed a way
to deal with Shaq.
Bull shit... it was for the reasons I posted...

I repeat...why if it was because of Shaq why was the vote backwards? You
think it was about one player and his team voted against him?
The vote was 24 to 4, 3 of the 4 were the lakers west rivals at the time.

The main person advocating eliminating illegal defense rules was Jerry
West, long before the lakers acquired Shaq and continued when they did
so. He was on the committee and voted for zones.
The lakers voted FOR zones, 3 of their main west rivals at the time,
Blazers, Spurs and Kings voted AGAINST it.
...The only other vote against was Riley/Miami.
suleimanmd
2011-04-03 02:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terraholm
Post by suleimanmd
Post by Terraholm
Post by Terraholm
by Dr Jack Ramsay
The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
Jerry West, Jerry Colangelo, Zo Mourning Theo Ratliff (those two were
the players reps and both out for the season),  Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry,
Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and Ed Rush.
I really wasn't confused on illegal defense, I saw it when it happened
most of the time, it was not nuclear science , it's either you are
guarding your man or not.
The rules to force man to man was rocket science. And the rocket did not
work.
Post by suleimanmd
But I guess Vic is right , they needed a way
to deal with Shaq.
Bull shit... it was for the reasons I posted...
I repeat...why if it was because of Shaq why was the vote backwards? You
think it was about one player and his team voted against him?
The vote was 24 to 4, 3 of the 4 were the lakers west rivals at the time.
The main person advocating eliminating illegal defense rules was Jerry
West, long before the lakers acquired Shaq and continued when they did
so. He was on the committee and voted for zones.
The lakers voted FOR zones, 3 of their main west rivals at the time,
Blazers, Spurs and Kings voted AGAINST it.
...The only other vote against was Riley/Miami.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I never hid my bias against the zone, Thunder had struggled
against it this year, and I never liked it to start with anyways, I
hate it when grown men stand still and wave their hands above their
heads. Do you think they will have done the change when MJ was
playing < and don't count the wizards days; we all know he was not MJ
Terraholm
2011-04-03 02:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by suleimanmd
Post by Terraholm
Post by suleimanmd
Post by Terraholm
Post by Terraholm
by Dr Jack Ramsay
The committee unanimously recommended to eliminate the illegal defensive
guidelines because of the inactive offensive game that they fostered.
Jerry West, Jerry Colangelo, Zo Mourning Theo Ratliff (those two were
the players reps and both out for the season), Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry,
Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and Ed Rush.
I really wasn't confused on illegal defense, I saw it when it happened
most of the time, it was not nuclear science , it's either you are
guarding your man or not.
The rules to force man to man was rocket science. And the rocket did not
work.
Post by suleimanmd
But I guess Vic is right , they needed a way
to deal with Shaq.
Bull shit... it was for the reasons I posted...
I repeat...why if it was because of Shaq why was the vote backwards? You
think it was about one player and his team voted against him?
The vote was 24 to 4, 3 of the 4 were the lakers west rivals at the time.
The main person advocating eliminating illegal defense rules was Jerry
West, long before the lakers acquired Shaq and continued when they did
so. He was on the committee and voted for zones.
The lakers voted FOR zones, 3 of their main west rivals at the time,
Blazers, Spurs and Kings voted AGAINST it.
...The only other vote against was Riley/Miami.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I never hid my bias against the zone, Thunder had struggled
against it this year, and I never liked it to start with anyways, I
hate it when grown men stand still and wave their hands above their
heads. Do you think they will have done the change when MJ was
playing< and don't count the wizards days; we all know he was not MJ
Jerry West would have, he tried to get it done in the mid 90s.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...