Just asked West and Norwood

And Sturt, bad spelling sorry

i have seen these teams play zone and play it good but there man to man "d" is average

more like the whole team struggled to play man to man

(all of the below is for juniors)
i hate zones. let me re-phase that, i hate teams that use zones as their main defensive.

Zone is great as a switch up, or used sparingly, but teams that use zones all game breed poor defensive players.

I propose that teams lose the same percentage of points at the end of the game, as the time of the game they played in a zone.

e.g A team plays the entire game (100%) in a zone they lose all their points.

or

a team plays 10% of the game in zone, they lose 10% of their points.

This would ensure coaches use zones for only a handful of times each game as a mix-up defense.

What does everyone think of that idea. Basa should trial it in the silly season ready for 2006 winter season IMO.

Surely Basketball is a combination of skills that a team can learn.
To penalise a team a proportion of points for playing a 'legal' zone defence makes little sense.
Where next? 4 points for a long range shot against a zone?
Some teams also play boring offense, but as long as it is within thge rules, you have to adapt your defence to combat their tactics

it also was 'legal' to stand in the key all game. (now days that would be a 3 second violation and a 24 second violation). We need to keep with the times, and adapt to how the game is progressing. I bet you wouldn't see a zone in europe, and i know for a fact 'zone' is a dirty word among american high schools.

...but a 3 step lay-up is okay in the NBA??? I thought travel was travel?

my bad (?)

It depends on how the zone is played.

If it is played to give the players a rest and be lazy because they can't be bothered playing solid D individually, hindering development with bad habits, then you gotta ask if that's what you want.

However if it is an agressive zone players can work just as hard as a man, and it can be effective.

It also depends on your definition of "zone" are you including full court trapping zones, or half court zones where you trap in certain areas? Or do you have a seperate class "traps".

I think many of you are closed minded to say man = good, zone = bad.

Before any y'all try and shut me down, I have not played any zone yet this year with the team i coach, but i think it is a BS argument to try and find a universal answer that will apply to all teams against all opposition.

ITA - that is complete BS. i saw your team (asst coach) last night and they played a half court 2-1-2 zone the entire game.

The way it looks to me is you can't play offense against a zone, so your trying and get it banned.

Simply put 3 point shooters make the zone very shaky as to strong centre/forwards in post positions. Force teams to change by proving strong offences against zones. Not by changing the rules.
Sorry but banning it for U/16's is an excuse not to improve the offensive skills.

u-16's i don't expect to be three point specialist. by 18's i do.

the reason i hate it is because i am a 18's coach, and the kids that come through cannot play man, they are so used to a zone, they have lazy habits.

that is the reason, not coz we can't shoot.

In Melbourne about 2 yrs ago, there was a push for a "No Zone" Policy for the U/12 & U/14 VC Grades. It was squashed due to the difficulty of policing. It was deemed to hard to determine what is not a zone. Full court zone presses and split line defense were mentioned as problems, as was the question of who would police the rule. Would it be the on court Ref's or the Ref Supervisor. I believe it was a case of too hard, so we'll leave it. The way I remember it there was a vote from all associations and the smaller clubs need a zone to compete, so they voted it out.

My personal view is a "No Zone" policy would be great for juniors up to U/16's Australia wide. It would surely help players develop a better understanding of the hard work that is needed to play defense at the top level. And for those that complain about playing against a zone, work out how to beat it. It's usually not that hard. One last point, the better teams usually use Man and the others use a zone.

if the u14's were allowed to play a zone, then the under 16's wouldn't spend so much time teaching, and practicing (yes during games) the defence that the man d becomes secondary to ensure they understand and can play a zone.

Where are you U18 3 point shooters ggoing to come from if they don't learn the skill in u 16's. ever considre that both rule changes are linked (U14 = no 3 point line U 14 = no zone)