3ball
02-04-2015, 09:31 PM
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
Out of all the things to consider when making the new rules, paint-camping was the issue the NBA wanted to make sure they resolved more than anything else.
But there's no way it would've been their #1 concern if the old rules had been sufficient in addressing the issue - there would be no reason to worry they wouldn't get it right if everything had been fine regarding paint-camping the first time around under the old rules.
But unfortunately, no one knows or understands what the old 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.
"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
Out of all the things to consider when making the new rules, paint-camping was the issue the NBA wanted to make sure they resolved more than anything else.
But there's no way it would've been their #1 concern if the old rules had been sufficient in addressing the issue - there would be no reason to worry they wouldn't get it right if everything had been fine regarding paint-camping the first time around under the old rules.
But unfortunately, no one knows or understands what the old 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.