play” prior to 1910, there had not been much de-
fensive “team play.” Shortly after 1910 the offense
began massing its players under the basket. This
concentration was countered by placing the defen-
sive team in the back court. This was called the
“five man defense.”

The defensive history of the game has been the
story of the alternate rise and fall of the “man-to-
man” and the “zone” defense. Around 1920 the
“zone” defense was about to be recognized as supe-
rior. Stalling tactics of the offense then countered
this popularity and the “man-to-man” style re-

‘gained its standing. However, the “zone” received

a blood transfusion in 1932 when the rules com-
mittee curtailed the effect of stalling through the
medium of the ten-second rule. This regulation
forced the team in possession to advance the ball
across the middle of the court within ten seconds
after its recovery.

Before this new rule was adopted, teams using
the “zone” defense and behind in the score, were
forced to abandon their position under the basket
and play the ball in order to make their opponents
attack. When defensive teams refused to come out
from the zone and endeavored to secure the ball a
stalemate was caused and low scores resulted. This
spoiled the game for everyone. The ten-second rule
reversed the procedure, because it forced the at-
tacking team to advance the ball into zone territory.
Dr. Naismith contended that the offense was un-
fairly penalized by this rule and held that the bur-
den of action was upon the defense who should try
to secure the ball.

The legislators completed the job in 1936 when
they placed a three-second restriction upon the pivot
play in the free throw area, with or without the
ball. When this rule became effective, the offense
lost one of its most potent weapons with which to
attack the zone. This “no parking” ordinance took
a great deal of strain away from the defensive
guards in a dangerous scoring area. The center of
the court directly in front of the basket was thus
protected by the rules. Coupled with the fact that
the opposition had to cross into defensive territory
within ten seconds, the three-second restriction
added further to the advantages of the zone defense.

Additional impetus to the use of the “zone” de-
fense resulted from the development of block and
screen plays. The “man-to-man” defense is pe-
culiarly susceptible to this offensive maneuver. A
great many coaches now meet these types of offense
with some form of the “zone” defense. Although
blocking and screening tactics may be employed in
attacking a “zone,” they are more effectively used
against the “man-to-man” defense.

 

The defense has weaknesses, but it also possesses
strength, and a good “zone” will give most teams
and coaches a headache. It usually develops that
players and coaches who denounce the “zone” de-
fense in basketball are those unfamiliar with its
use and methods of attacking it.

The cry that the use of the “zone” defense would
ruin basketball was loudest five years ago. Yet bas-
ketball is more popular today than ever before,
even though 40% of all basketball teams now use
some form of the zone defense.

At Long Island University, “man-to-man” has
been the basic defense. Yet there have been games
in which the speed of the opposing team, screening
plays, or the pivot attack have made the use of
a zone defense imperative. Naturally it has been
necessary to attack various types of the zone. Al-
though the scores of those games in which a “zone”
was employed have not been consistently as high
as those in which the “man-to-man” defense was
utilized, it would be unfair to say they were less
interesting.

It is not difficult to have low scoring games un-
der the present rules. Stalling tactics can still be
used in the front court. Most teams today, how-
ever, are offense minded, attacking quickly and
eagerly. Then, too, teams now employing the “zone”
are prone to regard the defense offensively by at-
tempting to secure possession quickly and score.
This desire leads to an open “zone”; rushing the
offense and taking chances, rather than use of the
ancient formula of retreat and mass under the
basket.

Both types of defense, with their many variations,
have a place in the game. If a game is closely con-
tested and both teams are trying to put the ball
“through the hoop,” I fail to see what influence the
type of defense can have upon the future of the
game. It is the writer’s belief that the intelligent
coach recognizes the strength and weakness of each
defense and impartially adapts either, both, or a
variation, to the material he finds available.

To use the zone defense on certain occasions
would be to court disaster, while not to employ it
under other circumstances would be sheer folly. I
have always endeavored to suit the remedy to the
illness, or the defense to the attack rather than hold
fast to any set standards or patterns of play.

So long as teams are offense-minded, as virtually
all are today, zone defense will not take from the
game any of its attractive features or its appeal.
Obviously no coach can afford to hold strictly to
one type of defense.

Official Watch for Timing N.C.A.A. and A.A.U. Championships Is LONGINES —
The Sports-World’s Most Honored Watch