The simplification of the NBA game
Rewarding playacting and foul-baiting is creating a less interesting game.
I disliked the NBA as a child. I watched games and attended Sacramento Kings games when they moved to Sacramento, which I enjoyed, but I preferred college basketball. The NBA was too simplistic. Often, one player backed down a defender for five, six, seven dribbles until he was under the basket and could score, or teams ran unstoppable side pick-and-rolls with three other players lifted, nearly eliminating help defense because of the illegal defense rule. College basketball provided greater variety, which interested me.
My interest in the NBA blossomed after college, while my interest in college basketball declined. I played with FIBA rules for a season at 19 years of age and returned to 35-second shot clocks in college basketball games. The games were too slow and featured too many free throws. The NBA rule changes, including eliminating the illegal defense rule and replacing it with the defensive three-second call, improved the game and added more variety to offensive and defensive schemes. One player could not isolate and back down another player for multiple dribbles, and defenses could load up to the ball side to defend side pick-and-rolls.
Today, my interest in the NBA wanes as the game simplifies. The simplification is a combination of the players’ incredible skills and taking advantage of the rules or the manner in which games are refereed.
Defenses tend to switch, conceding small advantages to prevent big advantages, because of the players’ skills. Attackers iso against mismatches as defenses prefer switching to trapping, hedging, or going under because these schemes lead to better, more efficient shots with ball movement. Teams employing shooters around the court and point guards able to whip passes directly off the dribble to the opposite corner exploit defenses caught in rotations, so defenses simplify and switch, attempting to prevent rotations and force shots over the defense.
NBA rules favor individual play, especially from the perimeter, as almost any contact on a driver is considered a foul. The refereeing encourages playacting to show this slight contact.
One common instruction when I refereed soccer was “call what the players expect.” The problem now is players expect calls when they embellish contact. The same occurs in soccer, largely due to advantage. In soccer, referees do not blow the whistle and punish the offense when an attacker plays through a foul and creates an advantage: They allow the attack to continue. Therefore, players will go down under light contact or stop playing when they want the foul. Some dislike it, but many times referees see the foul, but wait to see if the attacker can play through it. Going down or stopping signals the referee.
Basketball is refereed differently, as advantage is not part of the rules. Frequently referees wave off baskets because they blew their whistles for a foul before the shooting motion; that would occur infrequently when allowing for advantages because players prefer the basket to free throws or inbounding the ball.
Also, these embellishments often are not fouls in the traditional manner in which the game was refereed. A defensive foul was unlikely when the offense initiated contact when I played. Now, any contact displacing an attacker is a foul if the defensive player has not established legal guarding position, even when the offense initiates all contact. Playacting demonstrates the attacker’s displacement, and the whistle sounds. Players expect this call now; they play for the whistle, and the referees oblige.
A second common instruction when I refereed was “call what the game deserves.” Some games are physical and neither team gains an advantage with the physical play. Referees allow them to play through more contact. Other games are chippy, and they call the game tighter to prevent fights and dangerous tackles. Players earn the right to play more physically as soccer prefers the game to flow with as few stoppages as possible, while protecting players’ safety.
Basketball does not deserve these foul-baiting and playacting calls. Players are skilled enough. The playacting and subsequent whistles detract from the game because they make defending nearly impossible. The game is less interesting when there is no battle between offense and defense — when the offense has such an advantage. The tension between offense and defense drives the interest and the competitiveness. The skill is remarkable, but is diminished when players grift for fouls.
The NBA has backed itself into a quandary because players expect these calls, but the game deteriorates because of them, whether or not they are technically correct or justifiable. More and more online discussion revolves around referees, as with the Premiere League, which seems to focus only on VAR each week. Can the NBA act to end the playacting?
One criteria when Premiere League referees look at fouls or potential fouls with VAR is the player going down theatrically. There may be contact, and the contact may meet the minimum standards for a foul, but if the player sells the foul too much, VAR often will not intervene. The goal is to remove diving (punishable by a caution) and playacting. Even when there is contact and one can justify a foul, VAR may ignore this contact because of the attacker’s behaviors.
Could NBA referees adopt this mindset? Ignore slight contact and allow play to continue when players playact. I refereed like this when refereeing high-school basketball, which is why I stopped, as the game expected calls I ignored. I would not bail out players who took bad shots when there was minimal contact even when defenders were not in legal guarding position. Play better basketball. Take better shots. Pass the ball. Is that possible in the NBA?
VAR changed soccer refereeing. Referees used to apply common sense. When attackers dribbled toward the goal line and were tackled with minimal contact, and they had no chance to score, referees pointed to the ball, whether or not defenders touched the ball, and awarded a corner kick. The play did not deserve a penalty and the corner kick was an acceptable medium result. Now, the referee cannot go by what the play or game deserves because VAR will overrule the call when the contact is a foul, which tends to be a lower threshold on video than live play. Referees must apply the laws more strictly, which, for the most part, has led to more complaints, as common sense or traditional heuristics no longer apply.
Is it possible for the NBA and its referees to return to more common sense application of what is and is not deserved as opposed to a rigid application of legal guarding position? The more subjective decision-making often leads to fewer complaints because the calls make sense. Watching players flail because they bumped the defender’s hip as he slid to cut off the lane is not what the game wants.
FIBA allows more contact and teams generally shoot fewer free throws. The allowed contact encourages more cutting without the ball and more strategy, as teams cannot iso their best player against a weaker defender and expect to score or draw a foul on each possession. The additional offensive and defensive strategy does not decrease scoring or offensive efficiency, as EuroLeague teams currently range from 100-121 points per 100 possessions.
The strategies make the games more interesting. Fans watch to see the strategy and the matchups, not just the best player iso-ing for drives, fouls, or step-back three-pointers. Most fans enjoy the entire game, the nuances, not just highlights. We would hear more about Tracy McGrady’s Ones Basketball League if we just wanted isolation highlights.
The NBA decided several years ago to increase scoring to expand interest. Now, the game has evolved to the point where defenses hardly stand a chance. A change to heighten tension between offense and defense and require more and varied strategies may drive increased interest before more fans return to college basketball or buy the EuroLeague pass. More skilled, more talented players should not require a simplified game to showcase their skills. We should aspire to more complex basketball to push physical and mental skills to their limits.
I agree with this 100%. The only reason I watch the NBA is out of loyalty to the Knicks, my childhood team, but without that longstanding personal, visceral investment in the team’s success, the basketball itself is really boring compared to college, Euroleague, or FIBA 3x3.
There’s no room for a variety of approaches that give weaker teams an opportunity to meaningfully compete with the relatively few number of teams that have the kind of superstar you need to make a post season run. It’s just kind of boring unless YOUR teams is playing.
I think the “highlight reel” emphasis on individual play is geared way more at trying to grow interest in the game among kids than it is catering to the interests of fans who are more interested in the basketball itself.
If I had a dollar every time an NBA guy whips their head back suddenly and violently in anticipation of contact…
While we’re at it, the block-charge call needs to be heavily biased toward block. Strong takes to the hoop should be encouraged! There’s nothing worse than a dude playacting their way into charge call by sliding in at a moments notice and feigning square contact. Many of these could be no-calls; swallow the whistle a guys will stop falling like bowling pins.