Re: new rules

["Jim Meninno" <Jim_Meninno@hotmail.com>]

----- Original Message ----- From: OzerskyJA <OzerskyJA@cmog.org>

> I'm convinced.  Bring the new rules on...anything that will
> bring the fast break back is ok with me.

I'm not nearly so sold, myself.  I'd love to see less isolation offense, but
I don't think you need to allow zones to accomplish that.  Don't let players
carry the ball, and don't let them travel with the ball, and they won't be
able to score nearly as easily one on one.

The other thing is that it WILL lead to more jump shooting.  Teams may try
to fast break more, but they will simply revert to a three if the break is
shut off.  Does anyone know if there is a league that plays zone defenses
with a 24 second shot clock?  All this talk of team ball is wonderful, but
there simply won't be enough time to swing the ball around the perimiter 10
times before finding an opening, like there is in college.

Thomas Murphy says:
> 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.

and I'll go along with that.  I still don't know what the illegal D rules
were pre-1980.  But I still think the whole root of the problem is what the
players are allowed to get away with while carrying the ball.  There are
rules in place right now that, if interpreted like they used to be, make 90%
of the isolation moves you see in today's game illegal.

The other rules changes sound minor compared to this one.  The incidental
contact, I believe, is simply a reversal of the hand check rule that was
brought in after the lockout.

I think baseball has the right idea with the new/old strike zone.  Maybe if
we call the games like we used to, they will be played like they used to!

Jim