The NBA tinkers anew - THE GAME OF MY LIFE by Bill Velasco

The National Basketball Association is flirting with a new set of rules to augment scoring in its games. The world’s most popular league is concerned that low scoring, already perilously close to setting a record since Syracuse owner Danny Biasone recommended the 24-second shot clock in 1954, would plummet.

On August 15, 2000, the league already adopted a new set of rules to make the game more fluid and speed up the last few minutes of games, which were plagued by too many timeouts and other delaying tactics that emphasized the importance of each possession. Some of them involved giving an offensive team only 14 seconds on the shot clock in certain situations and shortening some timeouts from 100 seconds to 60.

The fabric of the game of basketball has, in the past, been modified to make room for certain special circumstances. The most notable change was, of course, the shot clock, which prevented single-digit scores from ever occurring again. There have been others, like the introduction of dribbling (1897), defensive goal-tending (1944), the banning of the dunk (1968) and others. In 1956, the three-second area was widened from six to twelve feet to keep big men like George Mikan from dominating the game and rendering contests one-sided. In one outrageous experiment, NBC once covered a game wherein the basket was raised to 12 feet. Needless to say, it was horrible.

There have been other recent innovations. After the 1994 NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and New York Knicks (in which neither team scored a hundred points in any game), the league brought the 3-point line closer and reworked its hand-checking rule to allow more outside shooting and more one-on-one opportunities to score. However, the phenomenon repeated itself in 1997 (Utah vs. Chicago, only the Jazz scored over 100 only once), 1998 (neither Utah nor Chicago scored over 100 in any game), and 1999 (San Antonio and New York kept each other below the century mark for the series).

Almost a decade ago, FIBA (the international governing body for basketball) attempted to urge leagues around the world (including the NBA) to change their rules in the direction of the international amateur game. Naturally, the NBA did not comply because there are major differences between pro and amateur rules. But for next season, the NBA has approved the implementation of zone defenses, creation of a three-second defensive lane, easing of defense contact limits and a cut from ten seconds to eight seconds to bring the ball across mid-court.

What is the problem?

Primarily, players have gotten bigger. They’ve always said you can’t teach height. Unfortunately, you can’t fix it, either. Guards used to hover around six feet tall. Now, they stand closer to 6-6. It is no longer unusual for teams to have three seven-footers on the floor at the same time. And they all crowd around the same goal. And they’re more athletic. One of the reasons why Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were unparalleled on defense was that they could cheat farther from the basket and still recover in time to double-team. Try to score against that.

In addition, wider bodies means more difficulty in penetrating the lane. Some players may be right in fearing that the NBA will be reduced to a jump-shooting league. How would you get to the basket?

On top of all that, defenses have gotten more complex. A zone defense would dilute the pick-and-roll, for example, a staple of the Utah Jazz. These are the reasons why the Dream Team has had problems in recent Olympic competition. The rules make for more team play and subdue individual talents.

So what else can the NBA do?

The new rules place more pressure on the referees for their implementation. Having rules enforced by the absolutes of time and space might be better. Shortening the shot clock in certain situations helps.

Widening the three-second area for a third time may not be such a bad idea. It was widened to accommodate bigger players before, wasn’t it? This will allow more room for skilled players to drive to the basket without obstacles.

Lessening fouls might also be worth trying. Foul shooting has gone down in the last decade or so, why not try to avoid it altogether? What is the use of a sixth foul if it only serves to slow down the game and make it harder to score? Besides, players are supposed to play better defense without fouling, so why give them the luxury of an extra foul?

The NBA is struggling with the size of its players, but I don’t think the league should panic. Like any other basketball league in the world, it has more competition from the diverse forms of media around it. But the fans will always buy into a great game. Changing the rules so often might turn them off.

The approaching playoffs will tell if the zone will be justified or not.