Stu Jackson says Defensive 3 Seconds was meant to prevent Paint-Camping

[3ball]

Stu 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."

http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html


There you have it - I actually overlooked this quote originally, but Flpiii posted it in another thread. We had been discussing whether defensive 3 seconds made it tougher for defenses or not - clearly, it does, since Stu Jackson says the entire purpose of the rule was to prevent paint-camping. Stu even uses the word "camping" twice.

[navy]

Shut the fvck up 3ball.

[Cocaine80s]

fvck me in the ass 3ball

[BigTicket]

No shit. Did he also says water is wet ?

[J Shuttlesworth]

SHUT THE **** UP 3BALL

[3ball]

Shut the fvck up 3ball.


you shut the **** up.

defensive 3 seconds has a major impact on defenses, and Stu Jackson's statements prove it - the rule was designed to prevent paint-camping - these are Stu's words, not mine.

if a rule prevents paint-camping, it has a major impact on the defense.

Stu Jackson's comments prove definitively that defensive 3 seconds banned paint-camping, which coupled with the hand-check/physicality ban, put tremendous pressure on defenses and forced them to adjust to these changes.

add spacing strategy on top of the bans on paint-camping and hand-checking, and we see why extra defensive strategies are needed in today's game to maintain the same level of defensive effectiveness as previous era defenses who didn't have any of these restrictions.

[BruceLeeBowen]

Wow that rls thread really got into this guys head.:roll:
Prime Michael Jordan = Poormans Tony Allen in this era. :cry:

[navy]

you shut the **** up.

defensive 3 seconds has a major impact on defenses, and Stu Jackson's statements prove it - the rule was designed to prevent paint-camping - these are Stu's words, not mine.

if a rule prevents paint-camping, it has a major impact on the defense.

Stu Jackson's comments prove definitively that defensive 3 seconds banned paint-camping, which coupled with the hand-check/physicality ban, put tremendous pressure on defenses and forced them to adjust to these changes.

add spacing strategy on top of the bans on paint-camping and hand-checking, and we see why extra defensive strategies are needed in today's game to maintain the same level of defensive effectiveness as previous era defenses who didn't have any of these restrictions.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140218230735/walkingdead/images/c/c4/Didn't_read_lol.png

[navy]

shut the fvck up 3ball. You post the same shit over an over. Might as well start a mega thread so we dont have to be bombarded with your drivel that isnt even worth a look at this point.

[bdreason]

Did you miss the part where they eliminated illegal defense? You know how much easier that makes it to double team? Especially on the post.


The way that defensive schemes work these days, if you don't have shooters to spread the court, the defense can essentially camp the paint AND double more effectively, as long as there are two offensive players around the low block. Of course, that's why you don't see many offensives where more than one offensive player is near the low post.

With the removal of hand-checking, it's now easier for wing players to attack the paint... BUT... good defenses are still capable of denying wing penetration by forcing the drive to the baseline, towards the help defender. That's why you see so many teams spreading the court and running the high P&R from the top of the court. The easiest way to attack the defense these days is straight down the middle. This is something my Warriors do better defensively than anyone else in the league. Watch how we defend the perimeter drive. We try to push EVERYTHING away from the middle of the court.


If the league had taken away illegal defense AND chose not to implement the Defensive 3 Second rule... we would have ended up with a jump-shooting NBA... which is fine with me, go Dubs. :D

[3ball]

Before the 3 second you had the illegal defense. With the illegal defense there was no need for the 3 second because all an offensive player had to do when he wanted a big guy to go out was go camp out on the three point line, didn't matter if he could shoot or not the defensive player had to either follow him or be called for illegal defense. so in essence the defensive three second already existed but in a different way.


players could absolutely sag off their man if he was behind the 3-point line - granted, they couldn't sag back into the paint for more than 2.9 seconds, but neither can today's players. defenders back then and today are not allowed to stay in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds when their man is behind the 3-point line.

the problem is that you have a complete misapprehension about what man-to-man defense is.

you think man-to-man defense means defenders run around clinging to their man all over the court (this is the aforementioned child-like understanding of the game that i was talking about).

any basketball person can come on here and tell you that the first thing they teach you about man-to-man defense is to play halfway in between your man and the ball whenever possible, and since you are halfway in between, use your hands to point to your man and the ball at all times so you keep track of where both are - this is standard coaching 101 of man-to-man defense.

the only instance where this is not the case is the NBA's current imposition of defensive 3 seconds in the painted area, where defenders must stay within "armslength" of their man or vacate the paint. a man's arm is 3 feet long and the NBA paint is 16 feet by 19 feet, so players today must cling to their man even when their man is already inside the paint. defenders either cling to their man, or vacate the paint - those are today's rules.
.

[UK2K]

this is an example of what i'm talking about regarding people's child-like understanding of the game - players could absolutely sag off their man if he was behind the 3-point line - granted, they couldn't sag back into the paint for more than 2.9 seconds, but neither can today's players. defenders back then and today are not allowed to stay in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds when their man is behind the 3-point line.

the problem is that you have a complete misapprehension about what man-to-man defense is.

you think man-to-man defense means defenders run around clinging to their man all over the court (this is the aforementioned child-like understanding of the game that i was talking about).

any basketball person can come on here and tell you that the first thing they teach you about man-to-man defense is to play halfway in between your man and the ball whenever possible, and since you are halfway in between, use your hands to point to your man and the ball at all times so you keep track of where both are - this is standard coaching 101 of man-to-man defense.

the only instance where this is not the case is the NBA's current imposition of defensive 3 seconds in the painted area, where defenders must stay within "armslength" of their man or vacate the paint. a man's arm is 3 feet long and the NBA paint is 16 feet by 19 feet, so players today must cling to their man even when their man is already inside the paint. defenders either cling to their man, or vacate the paint - those are today's rules.
Wrong, that only applies if you are two passes away. If you are one pass away (a direct chest pass) you play on your man, and you do cling to your man wherever he goes, until he's no longer one pass away. The best defense is to deny your man the ball, since you can't really score without it.

Child like understanding? I see.

[3ball]

Did you miss the part where they eliminated illegal defense? You know how much easier that makes it to double team?


it's much easier to double-team with no spacing, because defenders are in much closer proximity and don't have to come from as far a distance.

Stu Jackson has several quotes regarding how defenders are forced to cover more ground due to spacing, but i don't want to clutter up this response with too many quotes - but you can see his comments are in this article:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html





Especially on the post.


Again, Stu Jackson says the spacing makes it EASIER for post players (from same article linked above):




NBA.com: Doesn't the wide-open style benefit certain types of players? For example, wing players vs. frontcourt players?

Stu Jackson: The benefits of an open game are not limited to just perimeter players. An open game can benefit a post player as well. Remember, if the players are spaced wider and using more of the court, then defenses have to play those players closely because they're good shooters. The style actually serves to open up the middle of the floor. If a team has an effective post player, he would have more room to operate in the post.





The way that defensive schemes work these days, if you don't have shooters to spread the court, the defense can essentially camp the paint AND double more effectively, as long as there are two offensive players around the low block. Of course, that's why you don't see many offensives where more than one offensive player is near the low post.


You might be forgetting how the defensive 3 seconds "armslength" rule works - the paint is a massive 16 feet by 19 feet, and a man's arm is only 3 feet long, so the armslength rule forces defenders to cling to their man even if he's already in the paint.

Accordingly, if an offensive player is on the block, his defender can't stand 8 feet away right under the rim like previous era defenders could. The defender has to stay within armslength (3 feet) - they have to stand right next to the offensive player on the block and aren't free to paint-camp under the rim or roam the paint... and if they aren't going to stand right next to their man, they have to tippy-toe on the edge of the paint or vacate the paint entirely.

Stu Jackson wasn't lying or making it up when he said the defensive 3 seconds rule prevented paint-camping - it's simply impossible to camp under the rim and await penetration, or patrol the lane when the armslength rule forces you to cling to your man at all times while in the paint.





With the removal of hand-checking, it's now easier for wing players to attack the paint...

BUT... good defenses are still capable of denying wing penetration by forcing the drive to the baseline, towards the help defender.


this speaks to the adjustments the rule changes forced teams to make so defenses could maintain the same effectiveness of previous eras.

and again, Stu Jackson said defensive 3 seconds was meant to prevent paint-camping, since paint-camping "encouraged low percentage shots" - he said these things in the quotes posted in the OP.





That's why you see so many teams spreading the court and running the high P&R from the top of the court.

The easiest way to attack the defense these days is straight down the middle.


Exactly - because as Stu Jackson said in the OP's quotes, the defensive 3 seconds rule was designed to stop the practice of paint-camping, where:



"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."

so yeah, with defensive 3 seconds clearing the lane, it makes all the sense in the world to attack the open paint straight down the middle.





If the league had taken away illegal defense AND chose not to implement the Defensive 3 Second rule... we would have ended up with a jump-shooting NBA... which is fine with me, go Dubs. :D


we HAVE a jumpshooting NBA.... 27% of all shots are 3-pointers..... that's a jumpshooting NBA, certainly compared to say 1985, when 1% of shots were 3-pointers.
.

[JebronLames]

fvck me in the ass 3ball
:roll:

[hahaitme]

3ball meltdown, happening in slow motion

[KDthunderup]

You seriously needed a quote to tell you that the lack of a 3 second rule makes it a lot harder to score in the paint?

Everyone should know this, go out and play some basketball for once.

[ralph_i_el]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/fred2.gif

[ralph_i_el]

They added the three second rule, because taking away the illegal D rules was going to make it too hard to score. Taking away illegal D was a big thing, adding the 3 second rule was a small thing designed to counteract it slightly. This is obvious even in the quotes you're posting. In practice, the 3 second rule doesn't stop you from doing much.

Please post my cheery picked .gifs of refs missing illegal D calls :rolleyes: I'm sure you'll convince someone eventually

[3ball]

You seriously needed a quote to tell you that the lack of a 3 second rule makes it a lot harder to score in the paint?

Everyone should know this, go out and play some basketball for once.


Tell that to posters like Flpiii and Dr.J4ever - they say only the spacing and hand-checking ban makes it harder on defenses, but not defensive 3 seconds, even though the NBA and Stu Jackson said eliminating paint camping was the #1 issue with changing the rules - this is the same quote cited in the OP:



STU 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."


http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html
.

[3ball]

adding the 3 second rule was a small thing

In practice, the 3 second rule doesn't stop you from doing much.


except camping in the paint - which was the #1 issue in changing the rules, according to Stu Jackson:



STU 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."


http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html
.

[ralph_i_el]

Tell that to posters like Flpiii and Dr.J4ever - they say only the spacing and hand-checking ban makes it harder on defenses, but not defensive 3 seconds, even though the NBA and Stu Jackson said eliminating paint camping was the #1 reason for changing the rules - this is the same quote cited in the OP:



STU 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."


http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html
Can you not read? "When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a..."

The number one concern WITH GETTING RID OF ILLEGAL D. That means they were concerned that getting rid of illegal D was going TOO FAR. All this quote (that you keep posting like we didn't see it the first couple times) is saying is that removing illegal D was BIG and adding 3 seconds was a SMALL way to balance this big change.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/oprah_reaction.gif

[3ball]

The number one concern WITH GETTING RID OF ILLEGAL D. That means they were concerned that getting rid of illegal D was going TOO FAR. All this quote (that you keep posting like we didn't see it the first couple times) is saying is that removing illegal D was BIG and adding 3 seconds was a SMALL way to balance this big change.


Defensive 3 seconds was implemented to prevent paint-camping - that's the title of the thread - and it's a fact.

The old illegal defense rules had allowed paint-camping, since defenders didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the lane like they do now.

Otoh, the new defensive 3 seconds rule eliminated paint-camping by requiring defenders to remain within armslength to stay in the lane.. As Stu Jackson said, eliminating paint-camping was the purpose of the defensive 3 seconds rule.

Between the ban on paint camping and hand-checking, as well as the advent of modern spacing, today's defenses must use additional strategy to maintain the same effectiveness as previous eras, whose defenses didn't have to deal with these burdens.

[Dr.J4ever]

Defensive 3 seconds was implemented to prevent paint-camping - that's the title of the thread - and it's a fact.

The old illegal defense rules allowed paint-camping, since defenders didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the lane like they do now.

Otoh, the defensive 3 seconds rule eliminated paint-camping by requiring defenders to remain within armslength to stay in the lane.. and as Stu Jackson said, eliminating paint-camping was the purpose of the defensive 3 seconds rule.

Between the ban on paint camping and hand-checking, as well as the advent of modern spacing, today's defenses must use additional strategy to maintain the same effectiveness as previous eras, whose defenses weren't burdened by these restrictions.

3ball, it's time for you to concede this thing. You're not reading it right. This is what I meant to tell you before that you're not interpreting it correctly.

Ralph i e l is entirely correct. It was a concern when they eliminated the Illegal Defense rule that big player would just camp in the paint, ergo, it also means it WASN'T a concern before they eliminated the rule because big players COULDN'T just camp in the lane. So this is why they put a specific 3 second rule.

C'mon, give it up.

BTW, FPLii had some great posts about this issue. This thread is now done.

[ralph_i_el]

3ball, it's time for you to concede this thing. You're not reading it right. This is what I meant to tell you before that you're not interpreting it correctly.

Ralph i e l is entirely correct. It was a concern when they eliminated the Illegal Defense rule that big player would just camp in the paint, ergo, it also means it WASN'T a concern before they eliminated the rule because big players COULDN'T just camp in the lane. So this is why they put a specific 3 second rule.

C'mon, give it up.

BTW, FPLii had some great posts about this issue. This thread is now done.

Bruh, don't know that 3ball has ascended to a higher plain of consciousness than us mere mortals? We can't hope to comprehend his insights. He's like the Dali Lama crossed with Morgan Freeman

[3ball]

Bruh, don't know that 3ball has ascended to a higher plain of consciousness than us mere mortals? We can't hope to comprehend his insights. He's like the Dali Lama crossed with Morgan Freeman
the only reason we've had to debate paint-camping in the first place is because posters in this forum refuse to accept what is very much common knowledge: that the old illegal defense rules allowed paint camping.

you couldn't accept it even after i posted the actual rules from the old NBA rulebook showing that defenders could remain in the paint with no time restriction, as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint - it says that in black and white.

the old rules clearly gave paint defenders far more freedom to camp in the lane than today's rule, which eliminates ALL paint-camping by requiring defenders remain within armslength of their man.

[Dr.J4ever]

the title of the thread says "Stu Jackson says defensive 3 seconds was meant to prevent paint-camping."

that's not wrong - that's a fact.

you guys simply refuse to concede that the old illegal defense rules allowed paint camping while today's defensive 3 seconds does not.

i've proved it by showing the actual rules for each era.

Okay, think about this.

If big players could freely camp in the lane pre-2001, Stu Jackson being the guy in charge would know this. Don't you think?

If he did know this, as seems reasonable, then why would he now be concerned that removing the illegal defense rule would have big players camping in the lane, if it was already common place before he made the rule? Huh?

Does that even sound logical to you? He became concerned about players camping in the lane AFTER he made the rule, hence creating a specific 3 seconds rule was necessary.

C'mon, don't worry we still think Jordan is goat, we promise!

[Dr.J4ever]

Bruh, don't know that 3ball has ascended to a higher plain of consciousness than us mere mortals? We can't hope to comprehend his insights. He's like the Dali Lama crossed with Morgan Freeman
:lol

[3ball]

If big players could freely camp in the lane pre-2001, Stu Jackson being the guy in charge would know this. Don't you think?

If he did know this, then why would he now be concerned that removing the illegal defense rule would have big players camping in the lane, if it was already common place before he made the rule?


the old illegal defense rules didn't allow 100% paint-camping - there were still some restrictions - defenders couldn't stay in the paint if their man was further than 3 feet outside either side of the paint, nor could they paint-camp if their man was above the top of the key.

since the old rules still had some restrictions on paint-camping, removing the the old rules would remove these restrictions, and allow defenders (particularly big men), 100% carte blanche to paint-camp and stand under the rim, as Stu Jackson lamented in the OP.

but again, the old rules still allowed a degree of paint-camping, while today's game allows zero, thanks to Stu Jackson's initiative to eliminate it.

Between the ban on paint camping and hand-checking, as well as the advent of spacing, today's defenses must use additional strategy to maintain the same effectiveness as previous eras, whose defenses didn't have to deal with these burdens.

[Dr.J4ever]

the old illegal defense rules didn't allow 100% paint-camping - there were still some restrictions - defenders couldn't stay in the paint if their man was further than 3 feet outside either side of the paint, nor could they paint-camp if their man was above the top of the key.

since the old rules still had some restrictions on paint-camping, removing the the old rules would remove these restrictions, and allow defenders (particularly big men), 100% carte blanche to paint camp and just stand under the rim, as Stu Jackson lamented in the OP.
.

Correct, so Stu was concerned about paint camping AFTER, and not before he eliminated the old illegal defense rule. Now we're getting somewhere.

The rule now is clearer. This is why offenses have changed up their philosophy of spreading the court and using quick guards to dominate with less physical perimeter defenses. It's a PG league, as they say. In the past, it was a big man's league.

Today's rule is better, and there is less ambiguity. One thing you're right about is in the past, offenses played closer to the rim, and defenses were able to more easily clog the paint in certain offensive sets.

Once in a while to offset this, teams would pull out their bigs to open up the lane for Julius Erving type players to penetrate. The old 76ers, pre Moses, did this a lot. This was done to expose the illegal defense being played by the opposing team.

Over time, offenses always adjust to defensive changes and things even out. But nobody can say there is no difference in how offenses and defenses play during different eras. The type of players and schemes used are different.

[sportjames23]

3ball got nigguhs mad af.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/072011/reverse-1310121676_angry_wrestler.gif

[3ball]

This is why offenses have changed up their philosophy of spreading the court and using quick guards to dominate with no physical perimeter defenses. It's a PG league, as they say. In the past, it was a big man's league.
Stu Jackson said the physicality/hand-check ban made penetration easier.


Penetration is not limited to small guards and point guards - big guards and wings penetrate too, and so they also benefit from the easier penetration just as much as anyone else.





Today's rule is better, and there is less ambiguity.


being less ambiguous is just one advantage and doesn't mean something is better - today's rule forces defenders to keep the paint clear, which in all honesty, looks really weird when watching a game today...

it doesn't look natural - the spacing and open lane often looks like a marching band or neat rows of corn with all the space out there - and it looks weird seeing players actively stay out of the lane - it's like there's a force field preventing players from going in there.





One thing you're right about is in the past, offenses played close to the rim, and defenses were able to more easily clog the paint in certain offensive sets.


but again, the old rules also allowed a degree of paint-camping, while today's game allows zero, thanks to Stu Jackson's initiative to eliminate it.

Between the ban on paint camping and hand-checking, as well as the advent of spacing, today's defenses must use additional strategy to maintain the same effectiveness as previous eras, whose defenses didn't have to deal with these burdens.





Once in a while to offset this, teams would pull out their bigs to open up the lane for Julius Erving to penetrate. The old 76ers, pre Moses, did this a lot. This was done to expose the illegal defense being played by the opposing team.


this is a very common misconception - the old rules absolutely allowed defenders to sag off their man if he was behind the 3-point line - granted, they couldn't sag back into the paint for more than 2.9 seconds, but neither can today's players.... defenders back then AND today are not allowed to stay in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds when their man is behind the 3-point line.

the problem is that many people have a complete misapprehension about what man-to-man defense is.

they think man-to-man defense means defenders run around clinging to their man all over the court.

but any basketball person can come on here and tell you that the first thing they teach you about man-to-man defense is to play halfway in between your man and the ball whenever possible... and since you're halfway in between, you're supposed to use your hands to point to both your man and the ball so you keep track of where both are at all times - this is standard coaching 101 of man-to-man defense.

am i saying you are lying about the sixers?... no... but it's pretty obvious that if the sixers actually did that, other teams would also have done it - it's a pretty simple concept after all and doesn't take a smart person to figure that out... but the rules show that doing that wasn't necessary, because players were allowed to sag off their man when he's behind the 3-point line - and this is some of the most standard, common knowledge about man-to-man defenses there is.

[OldSchoolBBall]

It is undeniable that the paint was MUCH more congested in the '85-'95 era than today. Anyone suggesting otherwise is blind.

[ralph_i_el]

It is undeniable that the paint was MUCH more congested in the '85-'95 era than today. Anyone suggesting otherwise is blind.
Because offensive players spent more time off the ball but in the paint. Teams have more shooters today and focus on defending transition instead of getting offensive boards.

[3ball]

Because offensive players spent more time off the ball but in the paint. Teams have more shooters today and focus on defending transition instead of getting offensive boards.


indeed..... and also previous eras had a certain degree of paint-camping built into the rules - it wasn't 100% paint-camping though - there were restrictions.

since the old illegal defense rules had restrictions on the degree of paint-camping allowed, scrapping these rules removed these restrictions, and allowed defenders (particularly big men), 100% carte blanche to paint-camp and stand under the rim, as Stu Jackson lamented in the OP (and as you astutely pointed out).

to prevent this 100% carte blanche of paint camping, Stu Jackson instituted a new defensive 3 seconds rule... unlike the old illegal defense rules that still allowed SOME paint-camping, the new rule was designed to eliminate paint-camping entirely.

ultimately, the ban on paint camping and hand-checking, as well as the advent of spacing, forces today's defenses to use additional strategy to maintain the same effectiveness as previous eras, whose defenses didn't have to deal with these burdens.

[Droid101]

The rule was to remove illegal defense, a confusing and stupid rule that allowed easy 1on1 isos, by allowing all other offensive team members to clear out, dragging their defender with them.

[riseagainst]

Wow that rls thread really got into this guys head.:roll:
Prime Michael Jordan = Poormans Tony Allen in this era. :cry:


:lol

[ralph_i_el]

The quotes show that Stu was more than just concerned - paint-camping was his #1 concern.

But why?

Why was paint-camping the #1 concern, the most important thing he was worried about when considering what new rules to implement after having scrapped the old rules?

ralph_i_el, feel free to weigh in on this too.

because the illegal defense rule contained a mechanism for clearing out the paint: aka keeping your offensive players away from the basket or on the other side of the floor so that a star player can go 1 on 1. With no illegal D, there would be nothing to stop a player from standing in the paint permanently. They needed a new rule to restrict the paint. Hence the 3 second rule. I'm not saying it does nothing, but i disagree with your entire assertion that the paint is super clear these days.

How often do you see 3 guys standing far away on one side of the basket while a star gets all the time in the world to iso? That used to happen all the time! It's not an effective strategy anymore.

[3ball]

Correct, so Stu was concerned about paint camping AFTER, and not before he eliminated the old illegal defense rule. Now we're getting somewhere.


The bolded is true - But the quotes show that paint-camping was his #1 concern.

Why was that?

Why was paint-camping the #1 concern, the most important thing he was worried about when considering what new rules to implement after having scrapped the old rules?

ralph_i_el, feel free to weigh in on this too.

[ralph_i_el]

The bolded is true - But the quotes show that paint-camping was his #1 concern.

Why was that?

Why was paint-camping the #1 concern, the most important thing he was worried about when considering what new rules to implement after having scrapped the old rules?

ralph_i_el, feel free to weigh in on this too.

quit deleting your posts and then posting them again. That's annoying

[RoundMoundOfReb]

not sure if i posted in this thread earlier but the rule is to prevent paint camping in conjunction with ZONE defense.

[3ball]

but i disagree with your entire assertion that the paint is super clear these days.


It's not my assertion, it's Stu Jackson's - in this article, he talks about how the hand-checking ban increased penetration, which created more kickouts to shooters and spacing - the spacing opens up the middle of the floor:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html


Stu Jackson: The benefits of an open game are not limited to just perimeter players. An open game can benefit a post player as well. Remember, if the players are spaced wider and using more of the court, then defenses have to play those players closely because they're good shooters. The style actually serves to open up the middle of the floor. If a team has an effective post player, he would have more room to operate in the post.





a star gets all the time in the world to iso... That used to happen all the time! It's not an effective strategy anymore.


the new rules were designed to encourage passing and free up lanes for passing and cutting (i'm quoting)..

the improved the effectiveness of passing realized from the rule changes allowed ball movement to surpass isolations as an option; the viability of isolations themselves hasn't diminished at all - infact, all the great wing scorers of today use isolations as a significant portion of their offense.
.

[3ball]

because the illegal defense rule contained a mechanism for clearing out the paint:


Do you know what that mechanism is? Can you say what the rules were regarding paint-camping in previous eras?

Can anyone?

People to this day can't understand what the previous rules said about paint-camping, and the lack of clarity is why paint-camping became the NBA's #1 concern after they scrapped the illegal defense rules - the old rules hadn't defined paint-camping and accordingly, didn't do a good job.

But we all know what the new rules are because the NBA made it their #1 concern to clearly define what constituted illegal paint-camping this time around - we now have the very definitive "armslength" language, which makes the rule simple to understand and easy to enforce.

By making paint-camping the #1 priority and concern, the NBA made sure not to make the same mistakes as before when they didn't define paint-camping, and consequently had a bad set of rules on the books that didn't work and needed to be replaced.

[Droid101]

Do you know what that mechanism is? Can you say what the rules were regarding paint-camping in previous eras?
.
Yes. You had to stay within a couple of feet of your man. Or else you'd be called for illegal defense.

Which is why the ISO-MJ special existed. Two of his teammates would go to one sideline corner, two on the other sideline corner, dragging out the defenders with them. This left MJ on the top of the three point line alone, 1 on 1, with his guy and no help.

[3ball]

Yes. You had to stay within a couple of feet of your man. Or else you'd be called for illegal defense.


completely made up... at least it didn't take you long to come up with it.





Which is why the ISO-MJ special existed. Two of his teammates would go to one sideline corner, two on the other sideline corner, dragging out the defenders with them. This left MJ on the top of the three point line alone, 1 on 1, with his guy and no help.


this is a very common misconception - the old rules allowed defenders to sag off their man if he was behind the 3-point line - granted, they couldn't sag back into the paint for more than 2.9 seconds, but neither can today's players.... defenders back then AND today are not allowed to stay in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds when their man is behind the 3-point line.

the problem is that many people have a complete misapprehension about what man-to-man defense is.

they think man-to-man defense means defenders run around clinging to their man all over the court.

but any basketball person can come on here and tell you that the first thing they teach you about man-to-man defense is to play halfway in between your man and the ball whenever possible... and since you're halfway in between, you're supposed to use your hands to point to both your man and the ball so you keep track of where both are at all times - this is standard coaching 101 of man-to-man defense.

[3ball]

Can anyone say what the rules were regarding paint-camping in previous eras?


Unfortunately, no one knows or understands what the rules were regarding paint-camping in previous eras, which is why the NBA made paint-camping it's #1 priority after scrapping the old illegal defense rules - the old rules hadn't defined paint-camping and accordingly, didn't do a good job governing the issue.

If I'm wrong about the old rules not defining paint-camping, than anyone should be able to inform me what the old rules said about paint-camping.. It should be easy to show that the NBA had no need to clarify the rule - the old rules are here: http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html.

One thing we know for certain - today's clearly defined paint-camping rule is a result of the NBA prioritizing paint-camping as it's #1 concern when it began developing the new rules.. Consequently, today's paint-camping rule can be defined in one easily understandable word: armslength... That was really easy... now if only we knew what the rules were for previous eras..

[OldSchoolBBall]

Yes. You had to stay within a couple of feet of your man. Or else you'd be called for illegal defense.

Which is why the ISO-MJ special existed. Two of his teammates would go to one sideline corner, two on the other sideline corner, dragging out the defenders with them. This left MJ on the top of the three point line alone, 1 on 1, with his guy and no help.

Yeah, ISO play, which is why why MJ constantly had to navigate around multiple defenders, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUXJ8Q7ehY#t=1m26s.

You'll never see a play like this today, because the spacing is so much better and the paint is WIDE open comparatively. Not to mention that no star player today can even dream of making a play like that, with that type of lightning decision making. MJ makes like 5 adjustments instantly on that play.

[Chadwin]

How often was illegal defense called in that era compared to defensive three seconds now?

[3ball]

How often was illegal defense called in that era compared to defensive three seconds now?
less than once per game, just like defensive 3 seconds now

however, it's much easier to abide by AND CALL defensive 3 seconds because it's so clearly defined

[3ball]

Yeah, ISO play, which is why why MJ constantly had to navigate around multiple defenders, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUXJ8Q7ehY#t=1m26s.

You'll never see a play like this today, because the spacing is so much better and the paint is WIDE open comparatively. Not to mention that no star player today can even dream of making a play like that, with that type of lightning decision making. MJ makes like 5 adjustments instantly on that play.



Great video OldSchool - Just your 5 minute video alone shows how standard paint-camping was in previous eras (where defenders are way out of armslength reach) - here's 3 instances from your vid:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/d0cee9725bfc493b8b23151879aa2838.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/26b3f82bcaac7ab5b6f4c83873557e1d.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/21ac71d4a439e502ad6866bec0b558c4.gif


the play looks night-and-day different from today's game - more hectic, frantic, random, and obviously, more physical, congested paints, camping, and no spacing - all requiring a higher skill level and better brand of hoops.