NBA
RULES April
16, 2001 - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NBA
Rule Changes By
JERRY MITTLEMAN
Last
Thursday, the NBA Board of Governors rolled the dice. Four proposed rule
changes, including elimination of the illegal defense, will either increase
ball movement, game pace and scoring as hoped or send point totals plummeting
back to early 1950s level. The risk was worth taking.
NBA
offenses have become so stagnant and predictable in recent years that games
are often painfully boring to watch. League officials realized that something
drastic had to be done, and this is the most radical rule change since
the introduction of the 24 second clock in 1954. Like any revolutionary
move, this one should be allowed to take its course over a number of years.
The adjustment period might make for a lot of ugly looking basketball,
but in the long run, the new rules could provide the impetus for a dynamic
change in the way the NBA game is played.
The
NBA’s main problem isn’t the existing rules. It was the search for an antidote
to high powered offense that led defensive strategy to be greatly overemphasized
since the late 1980s. By legalizing the zone, the league is paradoxically
hoping to encourage more creativity on offense.
Significant
rule changes can definitely influence how teams choose to play. The introduction
of the 24 second clock forced the NBA game to be played at a faster pace.
That, and an infusion of more athletic players into the league in the 1960s,
ushered in a period of tremendous innovation on offense that continued
on into the 1980s with the Lakers of the Magic Johnson era.
Great
players, teams and coaches, were the creative force that triggered these
changes:
Bill
Russell’s uncanny ability to block shots, rerouting them into the hands
of teammates and to control the defensive backboard, helped the 1950s-1960s
Boston Celtics introduce the concept of transition basketball. New wrinkles
like the outlet pass and the structured fast break with a wingman and cutter
to the basket, completed the process that Russell initiated.
The
Showtime Lakers of the ‘80s invented techniques like the Coop-A-Loop, and
the one pass, one second fast break (essentially grabbing the ball from
the net after the opponent scored then firing a full court pass), all engineered
by a big man (Johnson) with the requisite skills and creativity.
Since
the late ‘80s, the only innovation on offense has been the penetration
and kick-out, borrowed from European basketball to better utilize the three
point line that
the
NBA introduced in 1979.
I’ve
purposefully, not included the Triangle Offense. The Triangle was a 50
year old offense that Phil Jackson dusted off and perfected into 7 NBA
titles.
Another
change directly addresses the issue of game pace. Teams will now have 8
seconds to advance the ball over the midcourt line rather then 10. While
they were at it, they should have knocked a few seconds off the time clock,
to say 20 or 22, rather then the current 24.
Most
NBA players and coaches, including several prominent coaches like Pat Riley
and Rudy Tomjanovich, have expressed their dissatisfaction with the rule
changes. This should be music to league officials’ ears. It's only a myth
that the zone defense will cripple NBA offenses. The great players will
beat any offense and the great coaches will find creative solutions to
beating the zone. The new rules should pressure them into doing this.
The
zone defense shouldn’t overwhelm NBA basketball. It’s a legitimate part
of the game and exists on every level of basketball. Man to Man is the
staple defense of basketball. It will continue that way, with NBA teams
employing the zone only in certain situations.
Another
myth is that outside shooting is the best way to beat the zone. Well, getting
the ball upcourt, before the zone is set up, is even better. The new rule
should encourage faster pace, better ball movement (passing the ball before
the zone can react) in addition to better outside shooting.
An
additional rule change calls for the elimination of some of those touch
fouls, allowing brief contact, if it doesn’t impede the progress of the
player with the ball.
This
is definitely a step, albeit a small step in the right direction. It alludes
to one of the major unaddressed problems in the NBA today: how the current
philosophy of officiating has contributed to the slowing and dulling of
the game.
The
period from 1955-1985 was also a golden age for NBA officiating. Referees
like Sid Borgia, Mendy Rudolph, Norm Drucker, and somewhat later, Richie
Powers and Earl Strom, were giants in their field who contributed to the
exciting style of play on the court.
It's
not by chance, that when the ABA began vigorously competing with the NBA
in 1970, they tried to raid the older league of its top referees in addition
to its best young stars.
The
officiating philosophy in those days was that only action which gave a
team or player an unfair advantage over the opponent constituted an infraction,
or what came to be known as “no harm, no foul”.
Since
the late 1980s, the NBA has adopted a fundamentalistic, call it “by the
book”, approach to officiating. This has resulted in far too many whistles
that should be “no calls,” an authoritarian tendency to call technicals
in order, not to lose control of the game and a pervasive sense that references
are imposing their will on and influencing the tempo of the game.
The
former generation of referees established control by recognizing the ebb
and flow and natural rhythm of the game, and not allowing it to be disturbed.
Through
the new rules, league officials are saying, there is a natural beauty and
rhythm to the game of basketball and the best players in the world should
be allowed
to
perform, less impeded by unnecessary restrictions. To this I say, Amen
