Time's up for time outs

MELBOURNE (The View from Downunder) - There were just over two minutes remaining in the NBA game on ESPN last week when my friend Bill remarked, "I'll be back in fifteen minutes to see the end."

Of course, it's an old joke amongst basketball fans, referring to the number of time outs permitted in the NBA.

The final minutes of a close game seem to resemble American football more than basketball, with a break between almost every play.

And while, on the occasion where both teams manage to nail tough shots, the finish to the game can make great television, in most cases it just makes for a massive anti-climax of time-outs, TV commercials and free throws.

Recently in the NBL, the South Dragons and Melbourne Tigers played out a thrilling game, decided by three points, where only one timeout was called in the last two minutes. Players from both sides made tough shots down the stretch without having to see the coaches instructions on the whiteboard before each play.

The game finished with four-time Olympian Shane Heal narrowly missing a three pointer to send the game into overtime.

The lack of time outs was partly because FIBA rules, which are used in the NBL, only allow for four time outs in the first half, and six after the long break.

Coaches are therefore more likely to let their players play, and save their time outs for when they are absolutely necessary.

This makes for a more exciting, continuous spectacle, one that can capture the public's imagination and help basketball rival soccer as the world's most popular game.

But what worried me while I was watching the FIBA World Championships in Japan last year were the TV timeouts in each quarter.

I think 14 time outs in 40 minutes gives coaches too much control, and can create stop-start affairs. And these extra time outs aren't just boring for the fans, they can play a key tactical role as well.

One of the great things about basketball is its unpredictability. Watching Real Madrid run Panathinaikos right to the wire in Athens last week was absolutely enthralling.

The Greens are almost impossible to beat at home, but the Spaniards pressed and trapped and took them out of their comfort zone right from the first minute. 

The game was a marked contrast from most Euroleague contests, because both teams constantly attacked the basket, taking almost every open driving lane and open shot on offer.

And this offensive mindset came about because of Real's determination to not let the game become a half court affair.

But one thing that discourages coaches from mixing up their defences, as Real did, is the fact a trapped player with no passing option can simply call a time out.

While making the opposition burn a time out is a small gain, it is not nearly the reward for excellent defence that a turnover is - particularly when you consider that when extended defence goes wrong, it often means an uncontested lay up to the opposition.

An easy way to reward good defence is not to allow a guarded player, or a player trying to inbound the ball, to call a time out. Instead, they will have to try and find an option, which could lead to a fast break at either end of the court.

A continuous game with more open court play is good for fans, and a great way to attract new fans to the sport.

The Brisbane Bullets won last year's NBL championship by forcing teams to play a running game they weren't comfortable with.

This year, teams around the league are pushing the ball up the floor quickly before the defensive press can get set, and looking to score early in the offence.

This has led to more spectacular plays, and made many games considerably more interesting, as lower ranked teams take chances to throw more fancied opponents off their game.

Teams can no longer rely on one style of play to secure a victory.

So what do you think? Should we encourage more teams to extend the defence? Is more open court play good for basketball? Is it better to let the players play at the end of the game?

Until next time ...

Paulo Kennedy