2025-26 NFHS Rules Changes

[Rich]

https://www.nfhs.org/media/7213787/2...-rationale.pdf

[Rich]

A trio of changes to address when goaltending and basket interference are called are among the changes to high school basketball rules for the 2025-26 season.

These revisions to the NFHS Basketball Rules Book are among the six changes recommended by the Basketball Rules Committee during its April 28-30 meeting in Indianapolis – all of which were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

Rule 4-22-3 has been added to indicate that a ball is considered to be on its downward flight once it contacts the backboard on a legitimate shot attempt. Therefore, it is goaltending if a defensive player touches the ball after it contacts the backboard. Prior to this change, an official determined if a shot attempt was still ascending and out of the cylinder before goaltending could be called.

“By establishing that a ball is considered to be on its downward flight upon contacting the backboard, this rule change introduces a clear and objective standard,” said Monica Maxwell, NFHS director of sports and liaison to the Basketball Rules Committee. “It significantly reduces the need for officials to make subjective judgments regarding the trajectory of a shot, thereby enhancing consistency and accuracy in goaltending calls.”

Rules 4-22-1 and 4-22-2 were amended to indicate that only a defensive player can commit goaltending, eliminating the possibility of an offensive goaltending violation. The change removes the need to determine whether a ball in flight is a field-goal attempt or a pass. Any alteration of a shot attempt with contact to the basket or backboard by an offensive player would be considered basket interference.

Additionally, the act of intentionally slapping or striking the backboard during a shot attempt will now result in basket interference and not a technical foul. This addition of new Rule 4-6-2 and corresponding removal of Rule 10-4-4b from the “Player Technical” section aims to standardize officiating and remove intent from the decision.

Similarly, it is a violation for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay a return to the court after being out of bounds and be the first to touch the ball in new language added in Rules 9-2-12 and 9-3-4. This change removes the act from Rule 10-4-2, which called for a technical foul and lessens the penalty to a violation.

In a change to Rule 4-34-1, all players in the game will be considered bench personnel once an official signals for a time-out. This change ensures consistent enforcement of penalties for unsporting conduct by allowing officials to issue technical fouls to bench personnel during time-outs. Prior to this change, if a player warranted a penalty for unsporting conduct during a time-out, an official was required to determine if the player had been in the game or on the bench.

“One of the points of emphasis this year will be bench decorum,” said Billy Strickland, executive director of the Alaska School Activities Association and chair of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. “How can we help coaches and officials know that communication is a two-way street? It just needs to be done a proper manner.”

The determination of the location for a throw-in after a stoppage of play was adjusted in Rule 7-5-4 using the three-point line. If a violation occurs on or within the three-point line, the designated spot will be on the end line. A throw-in will be on the sideline if the violation occurs outside the three-point line. This rule change eliminates the use of the imaginary line to determine a throw-in spot.

According to the most recent NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, basketball is the third-most popular sport for boys with 536,668 participants in 18,587 schools, and the fourth-most popular sport for girls with 367,284 participants at 18,090 schools.

[BillyMac]

2025-26 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes

4-22-1 & 2: This change removes the offensive team from goaltending violations, simplifying
enforcement for officials and reducing ambiguity over whether a ball was a shot or a pass. It also
encourages more scoring opportunities and minimizes confusion for players and coaches.

Rationale: The change eliminates the possibility of an offensive goaltending violation, which simplifies
the rule for officials and players. It removes the need to judge whether a ball in flight is a try or a pass,
resulting in clearer enforcement, greater consistency, and more opportunities for scoring plays near the basket.

4-22-3 (NEW): This rule change establishes that once the ball contacts the backboard, it is automatically considered to be on its downward flight. Therefore, if a player touches the ball after it hits the backboard, and the ball has a possibility of entering the basket, it is ruled as goaltending.
This clarification helps protect legitimate shot attempts, reduces rough rebounding situations, and
addresses a common rules misconception among coaches and players. It provides officials with a clearer standard for enforcing goaltending in backboard-related plays.

Rationale: This change enhances officiating clarity and protects legitimate shot attempts. It also
addresses a common misconception among coaches and players by explicitly defining goaltending,
leading to more consistent enforcement.

4-34-1: This rule change updates the definition of a player to clarify that a player is one of the five team members legally on the court at any given time, except during time-outs or intermissions.
The change ensures consistency in rule enforcement by recognizing that it is difficult to distinguish
between players, substitutes, and bench personnel during time-outs and intermissions. This clarification also supports the accountability of coaches for all team conduct during these periods and helps avoid misapplication of penalties such as technical fouls.

Rationale: This change ensures consistent enforcement of penalties for unsporting conduct by bench
personnel. It allows officials to issue technical fouls to bench personnel during time-outs, aligning with
the current rules for intermissions. It eliminates confusion and potential misapplication of rules and
ensures fair and consistent enforcement of penalties for unsporting behavior, regardless of the
individual’s role.

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt. Instead of relying on an
imaginary line, officials now use existing court markings, specifically the three-point line, to determine
the location. This change improves accuracy, consistency, and clarity for officials by using visible floor
markings rather than imaginary lines, which were often misjudged.

Rationale: By using the visible three-point line as the line of demarcation, officials will have a clearer and more consistent method for determining throw-in locations. This improves accuracy and reduces
confusion, resulting in more reliable throw-ins.

9-2-12 & 9-3-4 (NEW): This rule change addresses situations where a thrower purposely and/or
deceitfully delays returning inbounds after legally stepping out of bounds and then becomes the first
player to touch the ball upon re-entering the court. Previously penalized as a technical foul, this action is now treated as a violation, aligning it with similar out-of-bounds scenarios. The change reduces the
severity of the penalty to encourage more consistent enforcement by officials and prevents players from gaining an unfair advantage through deceptive re-entry tactics.

Rationale: This change lessens the penalty for players who delay their return after being out of bounds, shifting the penalty from a technical foul to a less severe violation. This rule aligns with the penalty structure of similar violations, such as Rule 9-3-3 (where a player steps out of bounds on their own volition). The change is intended to make it easier for officials to recognize and penalize these actions consistently while reducing the severity of the penalty, encouraging more accurate enforcement.

10-4-4b: This rule prohibits players from illegally contacting the backboard or ring in ways that create an unfair advantage or interfere with a scoring attempt. This rule is designed to maintain fair play and
protect the integrity of scoring opportunities by penalizing actions affecting the outcome of a shot, with
a technical foul.

Rationale: The rule change aims to standardize and clarify the enforcement of basket interference,
leading to fairer outcomes and more consistent officiating. The removal of subjective judgments around intent allows for clearer rulings and better alignment with current game dynamics.

4-6-1a & b (NEW): This rule change clarifies and expands the definition of basket interference to include additional actions that unfairly affect the ball while it is in a scoring position. Basket interference now occurs when a player slaps or strikes the backboard, causing the backboard or basket to vibrate, while he ball is on or within the basket, touching the backboard, or within the cylinder.

Rationale: This clarification helps officials consistently identify interference that affects scoring plays
and ensures the integrity of the basket area during shot attempts.

2025-26 NFHS Basketball Editorial Changes
4-19-3c, 4-47, 5.2.1 SITUATION C, 6-3-2a, 6-3-5b, 10-5-2

2025-26 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
1. Bench Decorum and Communication
2. Faking Being Fouled
3. Contact on the Ball Handler

[Raymond]

Would love to see you editorial change for "contact on the ball handler".

Definitely a pet peeve of mine, the inconsistent and/or lack of enforcement by the same officials who go into the locker room and complain about how sloppy the game was.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

The determination of the location for a throw-in after a stoppage of play was adjusted in Rule 7-5-4 using the three-point line. If a violation occurs on or within the three-point line, the designated spot will be on the end line. A throw-in will be on the sideline if the violation occurs outside the three-point line. This rule change eliminates the use of the imaginary line to determine a throw-in spot.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt. Instead of relying on an imaginary line, officials now use existing court markings, specifically the three-point line, to determine the location. This change improves accuracy, consistency, and clarity for officials by using visible floor markings rather than imaginary lines, which were often misjudged.

Rationale: By using the visible three-point line as the line of demarcation, officials will have a clearer and more consistent method for determining throw-in locations. This improves accuracy and reduces confusion, resulting in more reliable throw-ins.

Will we still use the Rocket Ship Diagram for out of bounds violations?



Rocket Ship Diagram © 2009, Back In The Saddle

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Similarly, it is a violation for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay a return to the court after being out of bounds and be the first to touch the ball in new language added in Rules 9-2-12 and 9-3-4. This change removes the act from Rule 10-4-2, which called for a technical foul and lessens the penalty to a violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-2-12 & 9-3-4 (NEW): This rule change addresses situations where a thrower purposely and/or deceitfully delays returning inbounds after legally stepping out of bounds and then becomes the first player to touch the ball upon re-entering the court. Previously penalized as a technical foul, this action is now treated as a violation, aligning it with similar out-of-bounds scenarios. The change reduces the severity of the penalty to encourage more consistent enforcement by officials and prevents players from gaining an unfair advantage through deceptive re-entry tactics.

Rationale: This change lessens the penalty for players who delay their return after being out of bounds, shifting the penalty from a technical foul to a less severe violation. This rule aligns with the penalty structure of similar violations, such as Rule 9-3-3 (where a player steps out of bounds on their own volition). The change is intended to make it easier for officials to recognize and penalize these actions consistently while reducing the severity of the penalty, encouraging more accurate enforcement.

It took two, of three, formal requests, but it looks like the NFHS finally listened to me.

Past two years of "player steps out of bounds on their own volition and is first to touch" rule language changes probably helped to encourage the change.

February 12, 2025

NFHS Proposed Basketball Rule Change

Delete Old Rule: Player Technical Foul 10-4-2: A player must not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Penalty: (Section 4) Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in.

Add New Rule: Out Of Bounds Violation 9-3-4: A player must not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Penalty: (Section 4) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation.

Many officials don’t call players for purposely delaying returning in bounds because they believe that the penalty of a technical foul is too harsh. The penalty for illegally "coming in" should be similar to the penalty for illegally "going out" (9-3-3).

The NFHS did something similar many years ago with swinging elbows excessively with no contact. Forty-plus years ago it was a violation to do so, then the NFHS changed it to a technical foul. Many officials, believing this to be too harsh a penalty, didn’t charge the technical foul. In response, the NFHS reversed course and changed this illegal act back to a violation.

Same thing happened in 2005-06 when the NFHS changed leaving court for an unauthorized reason from a technical foul to a violation. The rules committee believed that the former penalty of a technical foul was not being assessed and hoped that changing the penalty to a violation would increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate a tremendous advantage.

[Valley Man]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Will we still use the Rocket Ship Diagram for out of bounds violations?



Rocket Ship Diagram © 2009, Back In The Saddle

I would say no. Use the floor markings. If the OOB violation is outside the 3point arc it goes to nearest 28'. If inside the arc, nearest 3' mark.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

I would say no. Use the floor markings. If the OOB violation is outside the 3point arc it goes to nearest 28'. If inside the arc, nearest 3' mark.

Sounds reasonable, but the NFHS says that the "rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throwin spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Additionally, the act of intentionally slapping or striking the backboard during a shot attempt will now result in basket interference and not a technical foul. This addition of new Rule 4-6-2 and corresponding removal of Rule 10-4-4b from the “Player Technical” section aims to standardize officiating and remove intent from the decision.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-4-4b: This rule prohibits players from illegally contacting the backboard or ring in ways that create an unfair advantage or interfere with a scoring attempt. This rule is designed to maintain fair play and protect the integrity of scoring opportunities by penalizing actions affecting the outcome of a shot, with a technical foul.

Rationale: The rule change aims to standardize and clarify the enforcement of basket interference, leading to fairer outcomes and more consistent officiating. The removal of subjective judgments around intent allows for clearer rulings and better alignment with current game dynamics.

4-6-1a & b (NEW): This rule change clarifies and expands the definition of basket interference to include additional actions that unfairly affect the ball while it is in a scoring position. Basket interference now occurs when a player slaps or strikes the backboard, causing the backboard or basket to vibrate, while the ball is on or within the basket, touching the backboard, or within the cylinder.

Rationale: This clarification helps officials consistently identify interference that affects scoring plays and ensures the integrity of the basket area during shot attempts.

I'm confused.

In the past if a defensive player intentionally slapped the backboard and the ball didn't go in all we could do was to charge a technical foul (and not award the goal).

How do we handle this now?

Award the goal, or award the goal and charge a technical foul?

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Will we still use the Rocket Ship Diagram for out of bounds violations?



Rocket Ship Diagram © 2009, Back In The Saddle

The rocket ship blew up. It's time was coming.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm confused.

In the past if a defensive player intentionally slapped the backboard and the ball didn't go in all we could do was to charge a technical foul (and not award the goal).

How do we handle this now?

Award the goal, or award the goal and charge a technical foul?

Award the goal. Slapping the backboard is now BI in all codes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Award the goal. Slapping the backboard is now BI in all codes.

That's what I first believed when I first read the changes.

However:

10-4-4b: This rule prohibits players from illegally contacting the backboard or ring in ways that create an unfair advantage or interfere with a scoring attempt. This rule is designed to maintain fair play and protect the integrity of scoring opportunities by penalizing actions affecting the outcome of a shot, with a technical foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's what I first believed when I first read the changes.

However:

10-4-4b: This rule prohibits players from illegally contacting the backboard or ring in ways that create an unfair advantage or interfere with a scoring attempt. This rule is designed to maintain fair play and protect the integrity of scoring opportunities by penalizing actions affecting the outcome of a shot, with a technical foul.

It has to influence the shot at the other levels as well, at least at he NCAA Men's level. It is not just simply hitting the backboard and then you call a violation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has to influence the shot at the other levels as well ... It is not just simply hitting the backboard and then you call a violation.

Thanks JRutledge.

Let me see if I've got this figured out?

In high school ...

Slapping the backboard, with, or without intent, is no longer a technical foul, never.

However, if the backboard is slapped, with, or without intent, and it affects the shot such that it doesn't go in the basket, we can award the goal for basket interference.

However, if the backboard is slapped, with, or without intent, and it does not affect the shot that doesn't go in the basket, we cannot award the goal.

Old rules regarding putting hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage (the Ralph Sampson Rule) are still in place and we can charge a technical foul.

"I think I've got it."

Do I?

Ralph Sampson’s (Virginia 1979-1983, NBA 1983-1995) controversial basket against Brigham Young in the 1981 NCAA tournament prompted an NCAA rule change. The seven foot, four inch Virginia Cavalier All-American center dunked the ball with his free hand braced against the backboard. The basket led to a five point swing for Virginia which capitalized on a technical foul against Brigham Young's Danny Ainge who thought Sampson's play was illegal. Actually Sampson did nothing wrong since, at the time, there was no rule making this an illegal play. Since 1983 NFHS rules now state that it’s illegal for player to place a hand on the backboard, or the ring, to gain an advantage.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Will we still use the Rocket Ship Diagram for out of bounds violations?



Rocket Ship Diagram 2009, Back In The Saddle

Why do you need a diagram for an out of bounds violation? Throw in from the exact spot the ball went out of bounds except between the lane lines.

Am I missing something?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk