Why was zone illegal in the NBA?

[ToadKings8]

For a period of time it was, what was the reason?

[NBAEMoreira022]

so white boys could have a shot

[adamcz]

The NBA has created all sorts of rules against playing normal, solid defense. No zone, no handchecking, no 3 seconds in the paint, no drawing charges close to the basket, etc. It's lame.

[bleedinpurple]

to enhance scoring.

[kenuffff]

scoring and no zone highlights players better more 1v1 isolations etc..makes it more exciting.

[Thorpesaurous]

Zone still isn't really legal. The defensive three seconds is basically outlawing zone, it just gives the player three seconds to realize that he's committing an illegal defense penalty, and correct it, so the ref doesn't have to blow the whistle every trip.
The whole point of switching the ball from one side of the court to the other is to make the defense shift side to side, and hopefully open the up the lane for a short time, and allow penetration that makes it all the way to the hole. The whole concept of illegal defense, and defensive three seconds just does that for everyone without them having to put in the work.
Honestly, 24 seconds isn't enough time to put in the work, so it's sort of needed. But it also explains a lot of the weaknesses in the game that have built up over the last 25 years. Like the fact that no one has any real mid range game, because you don't really need it if you can get to the rim more often then not. And the fact that there really aren't anymore true PGs, because their role of switching the ball from one side to the other has been rendered obsolete. And the spot up shooters used to pull the weakside of the defense away from the lane, their job has been done for them too.

Does any of this sound familiar regarding our recent international performances?

[FPower]

If players aren't allowed to hang out in the lane for three seconds when they're on offense, it seems logical to me that they shouldn't be allowed to do it on defense either.

[different107]

Zone still isn't really legal. The defensive three seconds is basically outlawing zone, it just gives the player three seconds to realize that he's committing an illegal defense penalty, and correct it, so the ref doesn't have to blow the whistle every trip.
The whole point of switching the ball from one side of the court to the other is to make the defense shift side to side, and hopefully open the up the lane for a short time, and allow penetration that makes it all the way to the hole. The whole concept of illegal defense, and defensive three seconds just does that for everyone without them having to put in the work.
Honestly, 24 seconds isn't enough time to put in the work, so it's sort of needed. But it also explains a lot of the weaknesses in the game that have built up over the last 25 years. Like the fact that no one has any real mid range game, because you don't really need it if you can get to the rim more often then not. And the fact that there really aren't anymore true PGs, because their role of switching the ball from one side to the other has been rendered obsolete. And the spot up shooters used to pull the weakside of the defense away from the lane, their job has been done for them too.

Does any of this sound familiar regarding our recent international performances?

What about Steve Nash and Andre Miller?

[saKf]

I don't understand how you can have a three-point line and not allow a true zone. Ridiculous.

[Y2Gezee]

What about Steve Nash and Andre Miller?


I piss on Andre Miller.

[dejordan]

back in the day i just assumed the nba gods figured allowing zone was giving an easy way out to players who could only perform on one side of the ball.

[dejordan]

I piss on Andre Miller.
R. Kelly?

[Scott Pippen]

to enhance scoring.
agree. Sad to know great defender like Scottie would be not as good because of new rules:banghead:

[lilojmayo]

Zone still isn't really legal. The defensive three seconds is basically outlawing zone, it just gives the player three seconds to realize that he's committing an illegal defense penalty, and correct it, so the ref doesn't have to blow the whistle every trip.
The whole point of switching the ball from one side of the court to the other is to make the defense shift side to side, and hopefully open the up the lane for a short time, and allow penetration that makes it all the way to the hole. The whole concept of illegal defense, and defensive three seconds just does that for everyone without them having to put in the work.
Honestly, 24 seconds isn't enough time to put in the work, so it's sort of needed. But it also explains a lot of the weaknesses in the game that have built up over the last 25 years. Like the fact that no one has any real mid range game, because you don't really need it if you can get to the rim more often then not. And the fact that there really aren't anymore true PGs, because their role of switching the ball from one side to the other has been rendered obsolete. And the spot up shooters used to pull the weakside of the defense away from the lane, their job has been done for them too.

Does any of this sound familiar regarding our recent international performances?

:applause:

well said the point of a zone is where ppl can camp in the paint all day when they outside guy cant shoot since they is 3 sec there really isnt a true zone in the nba

[Rekindled]

zone was illegal from the 80s to 00s, basicly the best period of nba.

[Loki]

zone was illegal from the 80s to 00s, basicly the best period of nba.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that zone was illegal from the inception of the NBA (or at least the late 50's) until 2004, not just from 1980.

[Focused]

I read it was supposed to get highlights on players more because NBA is like a commercial business.

[eliteballer]

Everytime you see a Michael Jordan play where the team clears out to one side and he goes into an isolation, you'll see your answer.

[Loki]

Everytime you see a Michael Jordan play where the team clears out to one side and he goes into an isolation, you'll see your answer.

:oldlol:

I guess they foresaw Jordan's arrival as farback as the 60's, since zone was never legal in the NBA afaik.

[Scott Pippen]

:oldlol:

I guess they foresaw Jordan's arrival as farback as the 60's, since zone was never legal in the NBA afaik.
what kind of answer did you expect from kobe fan?:confusedshrug::banghead:

[K.Koscik]

what kind of answer did you expect from kobe fan?:confusedshrug::banghead:

You're the first person to bring the word Kobe into this thread. On ISH Kobe is a word. He was just complimenting MJ. Incorrectly, I might add. But nevertheless its no reason to bring in the fact he's a Kobe fan.

[highwhey]

R. Kelly?
:roll:

[White Chocolate]

to enhance scoring.


Yet, the majority of teams still can't average 100 PPG.

[kingpala]

Good thread. We need more of these threads around. Notice how it was made when ISH was at its peak.

[bdreason]

Zone defense is lame and supports poor defensive players.


Man-to-man is where it's at.


The only problem is the hand-checking rule.


Get rid of any type of zone defense, and put hand-checking back in the game and we're good to go.

[Diesel J]

The NBA has created all sorts of rules against playing normal, solid defense. No zone


Zone isn't "solid" defense. It's an easy way of hiding/protecting people that can't guard their own man.

[Diesel J]

Zone defense is lame and supports poor defensive players.


Man-to-man is where it's at.


The only problem is the hand-checking rule.


Get rid of any type of zone defense, and put hand-checking back in the game and we're good to go.


I agree

[afro41]

so white boys could have a shot

hahaha :roll:

[D-Fence]

The BAA (Basketball Association of America), which was what the NBA was called before its first big merger, made zone defenses illegal on January 11, 1947. This was a little more than 2 months into the BAA/NBA's inaugral season.

However, many players and referees of the early days have said that illegal zone defenses weren't called like they were by the 1980s. Before the 1970s or somewhere in the 1960s, league officiating was inconsistent and generally didn't follow the official league rules. They say that, mostly, only the 3-seconds rule was enforced.

As to the original poster's question, I assume the league had illegal defense rules in an attempt to have quicker, higher-scoring games, which would thus be more exciting to fans. Slow, low-scoring games were a huge problem in 1947. Perhaps, some also saw the strategies of zone defense to be a potentially unfair advantage. That was certainly true of some games pre-NBA--when the paint wasn't as wide, without the 3-seconds rules or goaltending rules, where big men could camp near the basket and just knock every shot away before it went through the hoop. 6'10" George Mikan and 7'0" Bob Kurland did that in college for a couple seasons.

Defensive 3-seconds still exists for essentially the same reason zone defenses were illegal; it has just been more effective than the other rules, and so it remains.

[72-10]

The BAA (Basketball Association of America), which was what the NBA was called before its first big merger, made zone defenses illegal on January 11, 1947. This was a little more than 2 months into the BAA/NBA's inaugral season.

However, many players and referees of the early days have said that illegal zone defenses weren't called like they were by the 1980s. Before the 1970s or somewhere in the 1960s, league officiating was inconsistent and generally didn't follow the official league rules. They say that, mostly, only the 3-seconds rule was enforced.

As to the original poster's question, I assume the league had illegal defense rules in an attempt to have quicker, higher-scoring games, which would thus be more exciting to fans. Slow, low-scoring games were a huge problem in 1947. Perhaps, some also saw the strategies of zone defense to be a potentially unfair advantage. That was certainly true of some games pre-NBA--when the paint wasn't as wide, without the 3-seconds rules or goaltending rules, where big men could camp near the basket and just knock every shot away before it went through the hoop. 6'10" George Mikan and 7'0" Bob Kurland did that in college for a couple seasons.

Defensive 3-seconds still exists for essentially the same reason zone defenses were illegal; it has just been more effective than the other rules, and so it remains.

repped

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Zone doesn't work unless the offence has huge holes, like defensive specialists with little offensive game, no outside shooting, little ability to read the defence and make decisions.
NBA players can easily dismantle a zone and get open men or offensive rebounds almost any time, but not when the likes of ben wallace or micheal curry are on the court.

[adamcz]

The fewer rules a sport has, the more pure it is in my mind. At its most pure, basketball is two hoops and a ball. The major rules like no traveling, no going out of bounds, no fouling give the sport plenty of definition. I don't like the addition of extra rules that remove the most obvious tactics just because they're effective.

Rules that remove effective defense don't just create more scoring; they also impact the evolution of the game such that players with less offensive ability can play a more important role. We all know that great shooting destroys a zone defense, but if a zone isn't allowed, the importance of great shooting is minimized.

It's been done on the other side of the ball too. Dunking was outlawed for a brief stint in the NCAA. Had it been outlawed forever (and in the NBA), explosive athleticism would be a lot less important to defenders, since offensive players would be doing all their damage from below the rim. You would still need defenders with lateral quickness, but a big advantage would be gained by tall guys who can't jump (like Bradley, who never would have been posterized).

In the end, I mostly like the way the game is officiated today. I see both sides of the hand checking issue. Playing defense only with your feet is nearly impossible, but at times handchecking was a euphamism for holding.

My least favorite rule currently is the no-charge circle. Why shouldn't a defender be able to establish position over there? Why does an offensive player get to crash into him and have it be a foul on the defender? In general, I think way too many defensive fouls are called in charge situations. Thanks to removal of handchecking, getting between your man and the basket is the one and only thing you can do on defense. If it's a foul when the offensive player initiates contact running into you, what's left for you to do?

[72-10]

The fewer rules a sport has, the more pure it is in my mind. At its most pure, basketball is two hoops and a ball. The major rules like no traveling, no going out of bounds, no fouling give the sport plenty of definition. I don't like the addition of extra rules that remove the most obvious tactics just because they're effective.

Rules that remove effective defense don't just create more scoring; they also impact the evolution of the game such that players with less offensive ability can play a more important role. We all know that great shooting destroys a zone defense, but if a zone isn't allowed, the importance of great shooting is minimized.

It's been done on the other side of the ball too. Dunking was outlawed for a brief stint in the NCAA. Had it been outlawed forever (and in the NBA), explosive athleticism would be a lot less important to defenders, since offensive players would be doing all their damage from below the rim. You would still need defenders with lateral quickness, but a big advantage would be gained by tall guys who can't jump (like Bradley, who never would have been posterized).

In the end, I mostly like the way the game is officiated today. I see both sides of the hand checking issue. Playing defense only with your feet is nearly impossible, but at times handchecking was a euphamism for holding.

My least favorite rule currently is the no-charge circle. Why shouldn't a defender be able to establish position over there? Why does an offensive player get to crash into him and have it be a foul on the defender? In general, I think way too many defensive fouls are called in charge situations. Thanks to removal of handchecking, getting between your man and the basket is the one and only thing you can do on defense. If it's a foul when the offensive player initiates contact running into you, what's left for you to do?

I agree with your theory, however I think that the circle is enforced more as a safety precaution. Action there is right under the basket, and defenders are effectively albeit unintentionally taking the legs out from under an offensive player on the drive. The theory there is that the offensive player has beaten his man to the basket and should therefore be rewarded, similar to a reach in foul to stop a drive when beaten.