RealGM

How much do the rules need to be changed that you wouldn't call the result basketball anymore?

For example it's clearly possible to play basketball without the 3-pt line. But is it possible to play without, say... defensive goaltending?

I'd still call it basketball with defensive goaltending, though I do think the product would suck.

Dribbling being allowed in some capacity, otherwise it's netball, duh.

Could get rid of the defensive goaltending rules and raise the basket to 12 feet. Obviously the rules about making a basket counting some number of points, dribbling, the ability to rebound/steal/block. Could go without passing (one on one basketball). Some limitations on contact seems necessary or the game falls apart.

eminence wrote:I'd still call it basketball with defensive goaltending, though I do think the product would suck.

Dribbling being allowed in some capacity, otherwise it's netball, duh.

Pretty much this.

Basketball without defensive goaltending would be a sport without crossover appeal but that's how basketball was played before the players got too tall so it would still be basketball now.

Dribbling is probably the key addition to the sport after Naismith's original rules, and yeah, it results in the split between what we now know as basketball and what we now know as netball.

I'd add one more thing: To be basketball, you have to have refereeing that doesn't let you commit active violence against the opponent. If you don't have that, you have something that was indeed pro basketball at one point, but it results in a sport that is a combination of rugby & hockey, which is actually more different from basketball than netball is, and so I would certainly call it a different sport. I'd even say there's a playground name for it: Jungleball.

penbeast0 wrote:Could get rid of the defensive goaltending rules and raise the basket to 12 feet. Obviously the rules about making a basket counting some number of points, dribbling, the ability to rebound/steal/block. Could go without passing (one on one basketball). Some limitations on contact seems necessary or the game falls apart.

The concept of one-on-one basketball being either a different sport or the same sport is an interesting one. From a Naismith perspective, I'd say it fundamentally is a different sport - teamwork was the ENTIRE point of his invention. But realistically, "one-on-one basketball" is what everyone calls it, so insisting "it's not basketball" seems absurd.

Traveling rule. If you are allowed to take 3 steps it's not basketball anymore. It takes away from fundamental skills like dribbling, timing and footwork. You are allowed to dribble then gather the ball and make one more step to finish, that's basketball. That's why you can't compare players from different eras because players are allowed to travel now whenever they want.

Gooner wrote:Traveling rule. If you are allowed to take 3 steps it's not basketball anymore. It takes away from fundamental skills like dribbling, timing and footwork. You are allowed to dribble then gather the ball and make one more step to finish, that's basketball. That's why you can't compare players from different eras because players are allowed to travel now whenever they want.

By "now" you mean since the 1990s?

Basing things like dribbling, passing, FT shooting...

I think some rules like defensive 3 seconds or 5 seconds back downs make the product less "basketball", but it's still basketball. Same thing applies to illegal defense from the past.

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:Traveling rule. If you are allowed to take 3 steps it's not basketball anymore. It takes away from fundamental skills like dribbling, timing and footwork. You are allowed to dribble then gather the ball and make one more step to finish, that's basketball. That's why you can't compare players from different eras because players are allowed to travel now whenever they want.

By "now" you mean since the 1990s?

By "now" I mean last 5-6 years. NBA was always letting things slide and it was always more about entertainment than pure basketball, but now players literally do whatever they want on offense. Travels, carries, pushoffs, moving screens, flopping...It's one thing if someone slightly shifts the pivot foot, or slightly carries the ball, those calls can be missed too, the refs are not perfect, but when you allow players to take 3 steps to the basket time and time again, that's not basketball anymore. It takes away skill from offensive and defensive perspective.

I'll say it again, as a "70's fan" you are supposed to be a basketball purist, right? It's weird to me that you don't see this as a major problem in today's game because it's literally destroying it. You always refer back to 90's which to me is nothing but a deflection. 90's were not as bad as it is today, not even close. I'm sure it was worse than 70's but that's how it goes, it progessively gets worse as time goes by and as commercial aspect becomes bigger than the sport itself. There are kids watching this game today and they try to do the same things on the playground. They don't even know what basketball rules are. I guess you are in this place where you like the 70's and 60's basketball, but you also like this new game and the players that play in it, which is aligned with your own generation. I guess that you don't like 90's and 2000's basketball because that's right in between. But today's game couldn't be any more different than it was in the 70's.

It's still basketball, although I'm not fond of many of the rule changes. I liked post play and am not fond of 3 point shots in general and especially of spamming them from almost half court but I still enjoy watching the game overall. I have found I can't even teach dribbling or referee because it was so ingrained in me growing up that you have to dribble from the top of the ball so that almost every modern dribble looks to me like a carry. I don't remember any "gather step" rule growing up either; so again, watching the NBA (not so much high school for this one) seems like traveling on every call. Jumping into set defenders and getting the call, moving screens . . . the only offensive foul that I see a lot that you don't get away with is using your arm to clear defenders or hold guys when screening. That happens a ton at schoolboy level but they still call it in the NBA.

And yes, it's been a gradual slide but one that has accelerated in the last 8 years.

Gooner wrote:By "now" I mean last 5-6 years. NBA was always letting things slide and it was always more about entertainment than pure basketball, but now players literally do whatever they want on offense. Travels, carries, pushoffs, moving screens, flopping...It's one thing if someone slightly shifts the pivot foot, or slightly carries the ball, those calls can be missed too, the refs are not perfect, but when you allow players to take 3 steps to the basket time and time again, that's not basketball anymore. It takes away skill from offensive and defensive perspective.

I agree with everything you said, the problem is that some people didn't view it as a problem before, even though relaxing rules has been thriving for the last 40 years. I mean, if you allow 1990s players carry the ball, then Allen Iverson will come in and destroy the old way of handling the ball - and next generation will go further. Same with traveling - if you allow Jordan to travel on drives and use gather step, then expect James Harden within next 20 years that will push that to limits.

You view last few years at the end of the game, I view is as the pinnacle of what we decided to do 40 years ago.

I'll say it again, as a "70's fan" you are supposed to be a basketball purist, right? It's weird to me that you don't see this as a major problem in today's game because it's literally destroying it.

I definitely view is as a huge problem.

You always refer back to 90's which to me is nothing but a deflection.

It's true, it's a deflection. I just feel strange that you, as a basketball purist, can enjoy the league full of players carrying the ball, traveling a lot, focusing too much on physicality instead of skill and all of that with defense strategically being destroyed because of illegal defense rule. I don't dislike 1990s basketball, but it's definitely an era for purists.

90's were not as bad as it is today, not even close.

I don't know, illegal defense is horrible. Shorter line is also horrible. It was better in some aspects, but worse in others.

I'm sure it was worse than 70's but that's how it goes, it progessively gets worse as time goes by and as commercial aspect becomes bigger than the sport itself.

That's the point, if it's a progress then blame the whole process - not just the results.

There are kids watching this game today and they try to do the same things on the playground. They don't even know what basketball rules are. I guess you are in this place where you like the 70's and 60's basketball, but you also like this new game and the players that play in it, which is aligned with your own generation.

Last 6 years is not my generation, I am not that young.

I guess that you don't like 90's and 2000's basketball because that's right in between. But today's game couldn't be any more different than it was in the 70's.

I don't dislike 1990s and especially 2000s basketball. 2000s features my favorite team and player of all-time. I like all eras in the league history. I just don't like 1990s fans talking about the purity of the game, because 1990s is anything but pure basketball.

I agree that the game is much different now than in the 1970s. I like both products, because even with all these bad rules changes and officiating, we still get the smartest offenses the league has ever seen, more talent than ever before and variety of different approaches. It's not my favorite era ever, but it's still very fun era to follow.

If there's a basket and a ball, we're good.

Doctor MJ wrote:

eminence wrote:I'd still call it basketball with defensive goaltending, though I do think the product would suck.

Dribbling being allowed in some capacity, otherwise it's netball, duh.

Pretty much this.

Basketball without defensive goaltending would be a sport without crossover appeal but that's how basketball was played before the players got too tall so it would still be basketball now.

Dribbling is probably the key addition to the sport after Naismith's original rules, and yeah, it results in the split between what we now know as basketball and what we now know as netball.

I'd add one more thing: To be basketball, you have to have refereeing that doesn't let you commit active violence against the opponent. If you don't have that, you have something that was indeed pro basketball at one point, but it results in a sport that is a combination of rugby & hockey, which is actually more different from basketball than netball is, and so I would certainly call it a different sport. I'd even say there's a playground name for it: Jungleball.

Naismith didn't allow dribbling?

OhayoKD wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

eminence wrote:I'd still call it basketball with defensive goaltending, though I do think the product would suck.

Dribbling being allowed in some capacity, otherwise it's netball, duh.

Pretty much this.

Basketball without defensive goaltending would be a sport without crossover appeal but that's how basketball was played before the players got too tall so it would still be basketball now.

Dribbling is probably the key addition to the sport after Naismith's original rules, and yeah, it results in the split between what we now know as basketball and what we now know as netball.

I'd add one more thing: To be basketball, you have to have refereeing that doesn't let you commit active violence against the opponent. If you don't have that, you have something that was indeed pro basketball at one point, but it results in a sport that is a combination of rugby & hockey, which is actually more different from basketball than netball is, and so I would certainly call it a different sport. I'd even say there's a playground name for it: Jungleball.

Naismith didn't allow dribbling?

There was no concept of what "dribbling" even was at first, so it wasn't like he banned it, it just wasn't mentioned in the rules one way or another.

It developed on the court as play as a way to get around the "A player cannot run with the ball" rule ("I'm not touching so I'm not running with it!"), and there were debates as to whether to ban it. There's more to the separation between basketball and netball than this point (the latter developed in the women's implementation of Naismith's rules), but I do think it's appropriate to recognize that this particular loophole ended up being the main difference between the two main descendants of Naismith's game.

Doctor MJ wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Pretty much this.

Basketball without defensive goaltending would be a sport without crossover appeal but that's how basketball was played before the players got too tall so it would still be basketball now.

Dribbling is probably the key addition to the sport after Naismith's original rules, and yeah, it results in the split between what we now know as basketball and what we now know as netball.

I'd add one more thing: To be basketball, you have to have refereeing that doesn't let you commit active violence against the opponent. If you don't have that, you have something that was indeed pro basketball at one point, but it results in a sport that is a combination of rugby & hockey, which is actually more different from basketball than netball is, and so I would certainly call it a different sport. I'd even say there's a playground name for it: Jungleball.

Naismith didn't allow dribbling?

There was no concept of what "dribbling" even was at first, so it wasn't like he banned it, it just wasn't mentioned in the rules one way or another.

It developed on the court as play as a way to get around the "A player cannot run with the ball" rule ("I'm not touching so I'm not running with it!"), and there were debates as to whether to ban it. There's more to the separation between basketball and netball than this point (the latter developed in the women's implementation of Naismith's rules), but I do think it's appropriate to recognize that this particular loophole ended up being the main difference between the two main descendants of Naismith's game.

My aunt was born in the '30s and she told me one time that when she played basketball in high school, there was no dribbling allowed in the female game - only passing. So we're talking late '40s to mid '50s perhaps - not super ancient. Like, the NBA existed at that point.

Taking the modern talent and outlawing dribbling would be an interesting game to watch as an experiment. I think it would be cool to see all five players have to chain quantum-computing reads/passes together to get by what are the most active defenses ever.

As for the thread...A game, in a sports context, is a physical/mental contest played under a set of rules. If everybody agrees to a ruleset, they can call it X. If they play X for Y amount of time and then make a change to the ruleset, no matter how small, the game they will be playing is no longer X.

So linguistically, I'd be pretty hardline with the definition. If you change a rule, you're playing a new game.

But for practical purposes...as long as they keep the dimensions of the court intact, play 5 vs. 5, and don't allow pure defensive goaltending (so not talking about FIBA goaltending)...it's basketball.

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:By "now" I mean last 5-6 years. NBA was always letting things slide and it was always more about entertainment than pure basketball, but now players literally do whatever they want on offense. Travels, carries, pushoffs, moving screens, flopping...It's one thing if someone slightly shifts the pivot foot, or slightly carries the ball, those calls can be missed too, the refs are not perfect, but when you allow players to take 3 steps to the basket time and time again, that's not basketball anymore. It takes away skill from offensive and defensive perspective.

I agree with everything you said, the problem is that some people didn't view it as a problem before, even though relaxing rules has been thriving for the last 40 years. I mean, if you allow 1990s players carry the ball, then Allen Iverson will come in and destroy the old way of handling the ball - and next generation will go further. Same with traveling - if you allow Jordan to travel on drives and use gather step, then expect James Harden within next 20 years that will push that to limits.

You view last few years at the end of the game, I view is as the pinnacle of what we decided to do 40 years ago.

I'll say it again, as a "70's fan" you are supposed to be a basketball purist, right? It's weird to me that you don't see this as a major problem in today's game because it's literally destroying it.

I definitely view is as a huge problem.

You always refer back to 90's which to me is nothing but a deflection.

It's true, it's a deflection. I just feel strange that you, as a basketball purist, can enjoy the league full of players carrying the ball, traveling a lot, focusing too much on physicality instead of skill and all of that with defense strategically being destroyed because of illegal defense rule. I don't dislike 1990s basketball, but it's definitely an era for purists.

90's were not as bad as it is today, not even close.

I don't know, illegal defense is horrible. Shorter line is also horrible. It was better in some aspects, but worse in others.

I'm sure it was worse than 70's but that's how it goes, it progessively gets worse as time goes by and as commercial aspect becomes bigger than the sport itself.

That's the point, if it's a progress then blame the whole process - not just the results.

There are kids watching this game today and they try to do the same things on the playground. They don't even know what basketball rules are. I guess you are in this place where you like the 70's and 60's basketball, but you also like this new game and the players that play in it, which is aligned with your own generation.

Last 6 years is not my generation, I am not that young.

I guess that you don't like 90's and 2000's basketball because that's right in between. But today's game couldn't be any more different than it was in the 70's.

I don't dislike 1990s and especially 2000s basketball. 2000s features my favorite team and player of all-time. I like all eras in the league history. I just don't like 1990s fans talking about the purity of the game, because 1990s is anything but pure basketball.

I agree that the game is much different now than in the 1970s. I like both products, because even with all these bad rules changes and officiating, we still get the smartest offenses the league has ever seen, more talent than ever before and variety of different approaches. It's not my favorite era ever, but it's still very fun era to follow.

Illegal defense is a dumb rule, but it wasn't that impactful because of spacing. The whole reason why they implemented that rule and the shorter 3 point line was that the game was so paint oriented at that time. Now it's completely the opposite. Like now you have a defensive 3 second rule but it's not significant anyway because of spacing and centers need to defend higher.

Clearly we don't disagree on the transformation of the game. The game was obviously the purest in the earlier stages, and throughout the years it transformed itself, for better and worse. But the disbalance between offense and defense has never been bigger than it is today and something has to change. Everybody talks about 3's and possibly eliminating the line to restore balance, but to me it has to go back to the basics. Just implement fundamental basketball rules again and call it when players violate them. I watched this Memphis-Dallas game and Jaren Jackson was abusing that 3 step spin move over and over again. There is no way to defend that. Just eliminating those kinds of plays would provide balance, but the NBA doesn't want to see referee calls to get in the way of a good dunk. That's all they care about-highlights.

Gooner wrote:Illegal defense is a dumb rule, but it wasn't that impactful because of spacing.

It was extremely impactful. Teams put Mark Eaton, Manute Bol, Greg Ostertag at the three point line to create 4 on 4 play and teams couldn't just ignore a guy who couldn't do anything beyond the three point line. Teams couldn't soft double post players back then because it wasn't allowed. Teams couldn't play zones, which is one of the most basic way to defend inside oriented teams. It was a horrible rule and the 1990s basketball would have been so much better without it.

The whole reason why they implemented that rule and the shorter 3 point line was that the game was so paint oriented at that time. Now it's completely the opposite. Like now you have a defensive 3 second rule but it's not significant anyway because of spacing and centers need to defend higher.

The game was always paint oriented before the 3 point line, but the league was doing fine without such a dumb rule in the 1960s and 1970s. Games were still quite balanced and perimeter play still existed.

The problem with the 1990s games is that, unlike in the 1970s, they already had 3 point line. They didn't need artifical spacing to create advantage, they could have done that without illegal defense or shorter line. They were just too stubborn to take advantage of it.

Clearly we don't disagree on the transformation of the game. The game was obviously the purest in the earlier stages, and throughout the years it transformed itself, for better and worse. But the disbalance between offense and defense has never been bigger than it is today and something has to change. Everybody talks about 3's and possibly eliminating the line to restore balance, but to me it has to go back to the basics. Just implement fundamental basketball rules again and call it when players violate them. I watched this Memphis-Dallas game and Jaren Jackson was abusing that 3 step spin move over and over again. There is no way to defend that. Just eliminating those kinds of plays would provide balance, but the NBA doesn't want to see referee calls to get in the way of a good dunk. That's all they care about-highlights.

I agree here, the league isn't balanced enough. We should eliminate the "gather step", as well as most of the ball-handling moves, moving screens and defensive three seconds. I don't see that coming though, it's impossible at this point I am afraid.

There are still many things about modern basketball you can enjoy though - like the most advanced and sophisticated offensive and defensive systems ever, or the absurd shooting ability of modern players.

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:Illegal defense is a dumb rule, but it wasn't that impactful because of spacing.

It was extremely impactful. Teams put Mark Eaton, Manute Bol, Greg Ostertag at the three point line to create 4 on 4 play and teams couldn't just ignore a guy who couldn't do anything beyond the three point line. Teams couldn't soft double post players back then because it wasn't allowed. Teams couldn't play zones, which is one of the most basic way to defend inside oriented teams. It was a horrible rule and the 1990s basketball would have been so much better without it.

The whole reason why they implemented that rule and the shorter 3 point line was that the game was so paint oriented at that time. Now it's completely the opposite. Like now you have a defensive 3 second rule but it's not significant anyway because of spacing and centers need to defend higher.

The game was always paint oriented before the 3 point line, but the league was doing fine without such a dumb rule in the 1960s and 1970s. Games were still quite balanced and perimeter play still existed.

The problem with the 1990s games is that, unlike in the 1970s, they already had 3 point line. They didn't need artifical spacing to create advantage, they could have done that without illegal defense or shorter line. They were just too stubborn to take advantage of it.

Clearly we don't disagree on the transformation of the game. The game was obviously the purest in the earlier stages, and throughout the years it transformed itself, for better and worse. But the disbalance between offense and defense has never been bigger than it is today and something has to change. Everybody talks about 3's and possibly eliminating the line to restore balance, but to me it has to go back to the basics. Just implement fundamental basketball rules again and call it when players violate them. I watched this Memphis-Dallas game and Jaren Jackson was abusing that 3 step spin move over and over again. There is no way to defend that. Just eliminating those kinds of plays would provide balance, but the NBA doesn't want to see referee calls to get in the way of a good dunk. That's all they care about-highlights.

I agree here, the league isn't balanced enough. We should eliminate the "gather step", as well as most of the ball-handling moves, moving screens and defensive three seconds. I don't see that coming though, it's impossible at this point I am afraid.

There are still many things about modern basketball you can enjoy though - like the most advanced and sophisticated offensive and defensive systems ever, or the absurd shooting ability of modern players.

What makes you think that teams couldn't ignore Mark Eaton at the 3 point line? First of all, nobody would even put him there because he was not a shooter, unless he was setting a screen, second of all, illegal defense rule didn't prevent help defense, it prevented zone. I think teams would happily leave Mark Eaton at the the 3 point line to double Karl Malone.

There are things to enjoy, mainly the talent of the players, but I have to say that I'm watching less than before. NBA has the best players in the world by far, but the way the game is played is just not basketball-like anymore. It's not just me saying that, it's most of the people, even on this forum where you have NBA junkies. I enjoy watching European basketball more despite the talent difference, because that's real basketball. I also disagree about offenses and defenses being more sophisticated now. The game is played too fast for that. It all comes down to 3 point shooting. If you have a look, you pull the trigger, that's the philosophy of today's offense. There isn't much thought that goes into the game anymore.