re: new rules

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

I'm all in favor of eliminating illegal D. Coaches have devised ways of
short-circuiting mandatory man-to-man for at least two decades now. This led
to illegal D rules which turned many games into a slow-down, slug-it-out
affairs in which each team tries to break down the other through carefully
orchestrated iso plays. Eliminating these rules will encourage ball and
player movement and hopefully eventually lead to a renaissance in
fast-breaking offense (i.e., score before the D sets up). As the rules are
currently constructed it only makes sense for coaches to slow the game down
so that you can be sure your best player has a chance to go one on one
against the opposition (this tendency is further aggravated by the lack of
travel calls). Without the crutch of these illegal D rules the incentive
structure should change back to the free-flow of the '70s and early '80s
rather than the grunt'n'grab of the nineties. After all, the best cure for
team defense is team offense. (Plus is there a worse call then the illegal D
call? It stops play and for what? And remember this - even when it isn't
called the offense will often stall their own play and yell "illegal"
pointing to the floor to get a call. It slows the game down even when the
refs DON'T blow the whistle).

For those who are afraid that this will eliminate the athleticism of the
game ask yourself which is more athletic: a team walking the ball up the
court and isolating so one player (or perhaps two) can demonstrate their
'athleticism' (more often than not their bulk with teams blessed to have a
Shaq or Mourning) OR some of those same athletes busting it down court at
top speed for fastbreak passing, dunks etc? I'll take the latter every time.

I'm far less convinced about the rest of the rule change proposals - they
may be great but I simply have not had much time to think them over.

The three second rule could be good - if evenly enforced. It seems like a
bone to those who are afraid athleticism will wane. Ditto for the 8 second
rule.

The incidental contact rule sounds good if that means equalization of the
disparity between what is allowed under the hoop and what is permitted 20
feet from the hoop. I hope it does not simply mean more contact away from
the hoop without cleaning up the rough stuff inside. Hard to tell with so
few details out there.

I've got no idea about playing the ball off the rim - do any of our
international fans have opinions about this? It seems like a bone for the
big men to accept the elim of illegal D.

Finally, anything that simplifies the rules has got to be good for
officiating. The less they have to keep track of the better in my opinion.
Maybe we'll see more consistent 3 second calls against the offense now the
same rule applies to the D. (BTW what is the penalty for a defensive 3
seconds? a free throw? this could slow the game down a bit).

These rules as a whole seem better thought out than moving in the 3 pt line
was. They seem focused on improving flow and giving teams incentives for
stocking the roster with better rounded players (rather than athletic goons
who can D up) and executing a team offense rather than simply walk it up for
isos. I'm all for encouraging both trends.

Cheers -Tom Murphy

> Haven't seen any posts on the new rules about to be adopted for next year.
> Anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -No more illegal defense rules, but there will be a defensive three
> seconds
> rule prohibiting a Mutombo from just planting himself in front of the rim.
>
> -8 seconds instead of 10 to advance out of the backcourt
>
> -incidental contact (including hand checks) allowed
>
> -balls can be touched while on the rim