should the NBA remove defensive 3 second rule?

[Prokorov]

the only the league in the world that restricts where you can position players. NCAA you can have a big in the paint, same with FIBA. only the NBA has this rule, which seems really silly and only there to help manufacture more offense.

i think the game would greatly benefit from removing the rule. it would put a bigger emphasis on moving the ball and on jumpshooting. Zone defense should be part of the game.

[Rock Hardy]

The rules open the lane for the dunk and layups we actually watch the game for. Few people tune in to watch defense and jumpshots. It's simple as that IMO. The league wants to make sure the game stays entertaining.

[TommyTBolt]

I say no. The NBA is the elite top tier league so having different rules than NCAA or FIBA doesn't matter at all. NCAA college football has alot of different rules than the NFL for instance and nobody cares. Also, offensive 3 seconds is called as well so its hardly just restrictive on defenses, it works both ways. I hate the fact the NBA changed basic rules like "hand checking" to open up more offense so I will not support a move the opposite way and expose myself to being a hypocrite. If the NBA wanted more defense (and I'm assuming they don't) they would be far better off loosing restrictions on hand check, start calling more offensive fouls and guys lowering their shoulder and blowing over people (and acting like they beat them off the dribble, no you didn't) and start letting this reckless drives be no calls, stuff like that. That stuff would improve the game in my opinion by making it more physical and more of a mans game and less like FIBA.

[SOUL]

Idk but what annoys me is when somebody runs through the paint and the opposing coach is already yelling 3 seconds

[nuposse04]

My only issue with 3 seconds is how subjective it is at times...that or my concept of time must be skewed >.>

As tommy said, if the goal is to give defenders a fair chance, revert back to the old handchecking rules and maybe try to massively curtail the superstar calls.

While we're at it, lets not reward offensive players at all for rip through moves, it's obvious they aren't really trying to make the shot (most of the time) and they shouldn't be rewarded FTs (if in penalty) or possession because of it. /rant

[maoriboy]

No.

[KillMonger]

I would love for the defense to get something back, it feels like the offensive player has all the advantages. I would love for them to take away basket interference, make it like FIBA when the ball hits the rim it's live anyone can go get it......Could be a lot more game saving blocks that way, if those are counted as blocks that is.

[NaturalBuns]

I actually like the idea of removing it.
It doesn't only protect the paint more it also makes less use for help defense in which you can can't stick shooters better.

It would dramatically improve defense IMO.
It would take away a lot of dunks though in a half court set. Also less 3 balls.

Maybe less entertaining but I like the idea

[Froob]

Let's be honest, would there really be a difference? May as well remove traveling too.

[Winsome Gerbil]

its been noted before that the NBA has the biggest and most athletic players in the world, so the rule is there to prevent something that would never happen/could never happen in other leagues. Same reason the NBA doesn't allow goaltending on the rim. In college or Europe the number of guys who can even make that play are limited. But in the NBA virtually every upper tier big can, and it would be happening constantly. You get rid of it and the search for the next Mark Eaton would kick into high gear, because he could singlehandedly win games for you just stanting in one spot with his arms up. Hibbert would win that DPOY he's been after, maybe repeatedly.

Now if you mean this as a counter for the free forays at the hoops artificially created in the last decade by no longer allowing perimeter players to actually defend, would think the easier solution might be to just undo that mistaken rule.

[justinandimcool]

I'm always torn with this discussion.

You hear that it's ridiculous for the highest level of basketball to have rules that "baby" them. However, while the defensive 3 seems to "baby" the offense, it prevents a much more unfair advantage of "babying" the defense. Like the poster above me said, it prevents giants and freak athletes with no skill otherwise from just standing in the middle and doing nothing.

I say keep the defensive 3.



I also hated the magically advancing the ball 75 feet to inbound when you call a timeout under 2 minutes. I felt that it babied the greatest offensive players in the world, giving them yet another advantage. However, I've learned the opposite is true- having to stop a play from happening when the offense has to go full length in 4 seconds is way too easy for professional defenses. Advancing halfcourt is the equalizer that forces defenses to actually step it up the last few seconds. Similar concept to the defensive 3.

[blind prophet]

No, and the shot clock rewards hard working defenses and patient offenses that move the ball.

[kodo]

They could abolish it and it wouldn't make too much difference. It's fairly easy to just step out of the lane and back in. If you really want to just park your rear near the basket you can. It's supposed to be 2 feet both out of the lane but a lot of refs seem to let bigs get away with just stepping out with 1.

The threat of shooting "bigs" is what's really pulling rim protectors away from the basket these days, EG Boris Diaw vs Ibaka.

[Winsome Gerbil]

They could abolish it and it wouldn't make too much difference. It's fairly easy to just step out of the lane and back in. If you really want to just park your rear near the basket you can. It's supposed to be 2 feet both out of the lane but a lot of refs seem to let bigs get away with just stepping out with 1.

The threat of shooting "bigs" is what's really pulling rim protectors away from the basket these days, EG Boris Diaw vs Ibaka.

nothing would move this away from the hoop:



You'd just run a box and 1, completely take away all plays at the rim with one payer. There are very few players who shoot even 45% on their jumpers alone. All FG% numbers are heavily bolstered by the easy ones. It would be well worth anybody's while to just eliminate that from opposing gameplans and make them into the Atlanta Hawks last year.

[dice]

get rid of it. unnecessary and capricious - bad combo

[dice]

You'd just run a box and 1, completely take away all plays at the rim with one payer.

doesn't happen in college or internationally. and the players are just as tall

[Moose10Fan]

The rules open the lane for the dunk and layups we actually watch the game for. Few people tune in to watch defense and jumpshots. It's simple as that IMO. The league wants to make sure the game stays entertaining.

Wilbon?

[Devilzsidewalk]

I think it's worth a try for a season. It seems like a rule that caters to an inability to develop a counter in strategy and roster make-up.

[co_laper]

Bring handchecking back.

[Winsome Gerbil]

You'd just run a box and 1, completely take away all plays at the rim with one payer.

doesn't happen in college or internationally. and the players are just as tall

No they really aren't. Or the ones who are are not the same caliber of athlete.

But of course even if it were true you have a) college, with dramatically lower scoring totals, and b) international games where the rules have been tweaked to chase people away form the rim and its mostly a jumpshooting contest.