Scott, one of the best things, in my opinion about a Zone Defence is that if a team is up by about 50 points, and I'm talking about in 12s and 14s, then it allows the team that is down to at least have a chance at scoring.

I know some coaches will instinctively do the right thing and pull their kids back!

Zone is good in these cases!

i feel that zones teach a lot about team defence.

For example it teaches a lot about split line defence, when to step up, when to replace.

If the NBA has gone from compulsory man-to-man defence and has now allowed zone, then work it out. Zones are not lazy defence - they are an option that should be available to coaches. Any good junior coach would develop his players in all styles of defence.

I think the current rule is stupid.

undersized pf - your right, zone does teach defence, but man makes you more accountable. I feel (and i am sure this is the common position is) it is easy for good man defenders to play zone, than it is for good zone players to play man.

Scott - although you do raise some very valid points, and possible methods of implementation, i feel it would be detremental to SA basketball, as we are now. i dont think we have the foundations for it to be implemented effectivly.

I personally think that it is a good idea as well. As most people on here will agree that there will need to be limitations put on it.

I would suggest that you could only use a zone in U/12's for 1 of the 1st 3 quaters & in 14's on 2 of the first 3 quaters.

As Scott mentioned it does make kids pass the ball more & a criticism I have on many of our juniors is that they all want to drive to the basket to much instead of shooting the open shot. A zone makes teams shoot the ball & might teach the kids when a drive is more suitable.

I agree with the last anonymous post. It's victoria that needs to change their rules.No one cares if one of our u14 teams goes over to Melbourne and gets defeated because they come up against zones. It's a good learning experience for them.

Anyway, even tho we can't use them in games in our state at that age, doesn't mean you can't practise the zone stuff at training, especially in the weeks leading up to events such as the classics.

What about allowing the zone but implementing say a 5 second rule in the defence key way? That way the zone cannot collapse too tight.

Have a close look at the under 14 games ! Most teams are runing zones just not your 3,2 or 2,1,2 inside the key .

melbourne just is different style.

I feel that our kids are more skilled after the weekend.

all we got was muscle and grunt from the vics and some "have a go" refereeing

in my grade the sa teams seemed fitter

I have NFI what the answer is except maybe drop the no zone rule for a few seasons

my team struggles against a zone - but after 10-12 games and 2 months a drills we have recitified this

Personaly, I think the whole idea of making up rules to prove some point or other has hair on it.
Zones are allowed in the basket ball rules, All that is gained by outlawing them in certain divisions/age groups is making them less competative on the global stage.
Zones are not a lazy defense, there are number of concepts that aren't available in man2man d
stragey should be the decsion of the coaches, and not be hobbled by 'local' rules.
IF teams struggle against zone D's .. GOOD they will learn to defeat them, out muscle out shoot
and force the Defence to change, better to learn the game than change the rules.

Anyway just my 2c

But the problem is that some coaches will play zone IN YOUNGER AGE GROUPS where the players do not have the strength to "shoot their way out of it" as you can do in older age groups. In this situation, the zoning team wins because the other team, no matter how well they might be skilled is just not physically able to shoot consistently from the 3 point line.

This is why the rule was brought in nationally and most local competitions have also adopted it. The problem as I see it now is that this has created further problems by creating 1 dimensional offensive players, teams and games.

So, why not look at the original problem again and try a different solution. Personally, out of the 4 above, I have always liked the 16 foot 3 point line for Under 12's and 14's. This puts the onus on coaches to emphasise ball movement and penalises the defense for not only zoning or sagging too much in their man-to-man. There are Under 12 players from most teams who could shoot consistently from 16 feet but not from 20 foot 6.

It would be an extra court marking, but so was the 3 point line when that was introduced.

It would take out all the problems we have now with the policing of the no-zone rule. Let's face it, it isn't really policed now, except at Nationals.

Games would be more exciting as there would be more variety in the defenses played and the whole standard of these defenses would have to be better to defend the 16' 3 point line. The offenses would have to be better to counter different strategies and coaches would be forced to spend more time on the fundamentals of passing and shooting to take advantage.

im melbourne over the weekend our u/14 team came up against ' obvious ' zone for the very first time.....3 minutes into our very first game ( against another s.a. team ) the starting 5 were up against a 2..1..2 zone with no idea how to combat it, other than stepping up and continually dobbing it from outside the 3 point line.....no wonder we struggled to score more than a dozen points for that match.

most victorian teams did play the zone against us, however it was in that match that we encountered it for the very first time and it lasted the entire 40 minutes.....is just me or are most s.a. teams just too niave to expect that we won't come up against a zone defence when we travel interstate....it made for a very boring first up match, one which we lost and just set the tone for the weekend unfortunatly.

some good points are raised above however, and although not a fan of the zone at the younger age groups, think it should be considered for inclusion into the game in s.a.

The no-zone rule is just one of a number of modifications to the game in younger age groups to help development, including:
- ball size
- ring height
- foul line position
- three point line

I think all of these are a good thing for the development of junior players.

Regarding the no-zone rule in particular ...

Zones in under 10s-14s make it difficult for the offence to score because players aren't strong enough to shoot from the perimeter (with good shooting technique). It's easy to get a win in these age groups by sagging to the basket in defence, and althought it's still possible for teams to play sagging man-to-man defences, it's much easier for them to play sagging zone defences. Man-to-man defence at least encourages players to stick with a player, which allows more opportunity for the offence to attempt to beat their player off the dribble, which helps their development.

Incidentally, I don't believe that zones are necessarily lazy in general. There's no reason why players shouldn't feel the need to work as hard when playing a zone as when playing a man, however the incentive to do so is lessened in age groups where perimeter shooting is poor, as there's no ill-consequence suffered by leaving a player open on the perimeter.

I'm sure that our no-zone rule limits our chances of success at U12 and U14 tournaments, and to some extent, U16 tournaments too (as players are usually not exposed to zone until well after their interstate counterparts), but I'm also sure that our insistence on man-to-man defence at younger age groups is of benefit to the long-term offensive and defensive skills of our kids.

The Sturt U/12 Girls had to face a zone in their Grand Final. After some initial adjustments, they just passed their way through and around it.

If players are taught to pass and move rather than dribble and shoot then there is no problem. I agree was Butler in that teams often play it in U/12's andU/14's to try and pack in the defence to stop layups. But in the long run it only hurts the kids that are playing zone. Looking a the U/12 and 14 results. And considering we are only 1/10th the size of Victorian Basketball, we did OK at the junior level.

If we are goin to change something,let it be the competitivness between teams in all divisions.

I think a zone is a legitiment change up D at any level and is just part of a coaches arsenal to disrupt the opposition. If they can't handle it you have succeeded.

I agree with Arnie about U10's not playing zone, I think they should get the fundamentals of defense correct first before they play zone.

When I first coached Centrals U10's 10 years ago, I told them we weren't going to play any zone at all because that was all their previous coach made them play. They all looked at me really disappointed and one of the boys said to me "we won't win any games then!" to which all the fellas agreed!! I thought it was hilarious and it cracked me up. I think we ended up finishing 3rd, and all I did was teach them the "dig hand, window washer hand" defensive position.

Not being able to play against a zone is a short term problem. It's easy to make up an offense and get your team to train on it a few times to get it right. I think the fundamentals of M2M D take longer to learn, and these fundamentals are essential to playing zone D.

I would be interested to see "the mexicans" results against the same Vic teams in the next few years at the classics, maybe they might do much better as they get older?? Good luck either way.

My girls 12g Sturt played against zones in most of our games over the weekend. It was not really a problem for us as we have been playing 4 out 1 in motion for most of the season. I have been amazed at how effective this offence has been against zones at my age level and it is relatively easy to teach (about 15 mins a week at training) after they have the fundamentals of spacing & court balance.

I think one of our strengths as a team is that we can play full court run and jump or containment, half court R & J or containment or man in the 3 point area. None of these are perfect but then again at 12g level not much is, it still allows us to be in control when we do not have the ball and I think that is the most important aspect of Defence and one reason why I don't like very passive zones.

The defensive principles are similar if they taught properly so zone or man sholdn't be an issue. I think though that to zone all the time is detrimental to the player so I won't do it.

That said I would have played a very aggressive trapping zone in the classic GF if we had needed to!