THE

TOP—LOOK—LISTEN, and if the discussion
centers about the effect of the zone defense on
basketball—say nothing. Any statement you make
will usually be misquoted or misunderstood, and

discretion may well be the better part of valor.

Many coaches contend that continued use of the
zone defense will ruin spectator interest in basket-
ball and that it violates all defensive principles.
Others claim it is the only defense which strict
interpretation of the rules permits. It is not diff-
cult to search back through the historical pages of
basketball and find authority for both “man-to-man”
and the “zone” defense.

It is the writer’s belief that a man-to-man de-
fense is being used when a defensive player is as-
signed or lines up opposite a particular opponent
and during the rest of the game personally en-
deavors to keep this respective adversary from
scoring. A temporary shift or switch of men may
be permitted when the defensive player is blocked
or screened. At the first opportunity, however, the
original opponent is again played defensively.

A zone defense can be defined as one in which
the defensive players station themselves in front
of their defensive basket, thereafter shifting with
the movement of the ba, but maintaining more or
less set positions. No particular player is opposed
except when he moves into the defensive men’s
zone. Then all of the “man-to-man” tactics are used
in keeping him from scoring or receiving the ball.
In fact a good zone defense plays the man as well
as the ball.

Dr. Naismith intended basketball to be an open
game with as little personal contact as possible.
What defense existed in the early days of the game
was of the “man-to-man” type. Each defensive man
endeavored to contact his opponent as quickly as

20

CLAIR BEE was born in West Virginia
on March 2, 1900. He attended
Waynesburg College. During the
World War he served overseas from
1917 to 1919. Coach Bee is a mem-
ber of the faculty of Long Island
University where he serves as Direc-
tor of Physical Education and As-
sociate Professor of Accounting. He
possesses the degrees, B.A., B.S.,
M.S., and M.A.

ZONE DEFENSE

possible when his team lost possession of the ball.
This defensive type of game continued until about
1910. Thereafter styles in defense began to appear.

Much confusion has arisen because Dr. Naismith
stressed that defensive players should “play the
ball.” He certainly meant that the opponents should
also be played. The use of the term “play the ball”
resulted in a philosophy which adopted the phrase
as authority for the use of the “zone” instead of
“man-to-man” as the basic theory of defensive
basketball.

Until. 1910 basketball resembled the type of
game which today is known as playing all over the
floor. This occurs when teams employ a “pressing”
defense. During the past few years Rhode Island
State has made a scoring history under the expert
coaching of Frank W. Keaney, using this style
exclusively. His teams have become so adept that
their pressing defense has really developed into
an offense.

Contrasting the 1 to 0 games which have resulted
from the use of the “zone” defense with one played
under the “man-to-man” pressing defense may
prove interesting. In a game played February 24,
1940 at Kingston, R. I., Rhode Island State defeated
Connecticut 102 to 81. Both teams were undefeated
until this game. Rhode Island scored 64 points in
the first half. Seven of the players in this game
scored 40, 30, 27, 24, 17, 16, and 12 points respec-
tively.

Somewhere between the “zone” defense game of
1 to O and the “man-to-man” contest of 102 to 81,
defense should possibly strike a balance. I say pos-
sibly, because the spectators who support the game -
with their interest and financial backing much pre-
fer high scoring games.

Just as there had been little offensive “team