The Official Forum - NFHS 2025-26 Basketball Comments On The Rules ...

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - NFHS 2025-26 Basketball Comments On The Rules ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/106431-nfhs-2025-26-basketball-comments-rules.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1053903)

I certainly hope the NFHS clarifies the difference between these two changes, including whether it's possible to call both for the same infraction.

Pre this change, would you of allowed the shot to finish if a defensive player slapped the opposite side board before whacking the player or kill it immediately and wave off the basket? That might be the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053933)

Just looked at dozens of internet images of backboards.

It would be very rare, but not totally impossible, for a layup to touch the backboard below the level of the ring and to then be also touched by a defender before it reaches the level of the ring.

It's not just a hypothetical question on a rules exam question.

Maybe a once in an officiating career real life game call.

Maybe we do need to get it clarified, maybe such a goaltend might not need to be above the level of the ring and still be illegal goaltending?

Again, the college rule only part fo the ball has to be above the rim in this case. I am saying that they appeared to adopt the college rule, but has not made it clear if this part of the rule is going to be unique. I get it is a test question, but also needs to be clarified as when this was announced there was no mention of the difference. The surveys also asked about potential improvements. Well, most people probably are thinking of the college rule, and we just want to be sure that there is no nuance to the rule. ;)

Just want some clarification, that is all.

Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053937)

The surveys also asked about potential improvements. Well, most people probably are thinking of the college rule, and we just want to be sure that there is no nuance to the rule. Just want some clarification, that is all.

With the old rule, many (but not all) of our best varsity guys (State tournament level) admitted that they never considered on the way up, or on the way down, on a ball that hit the backboard, it was always "automatically" ruled goaltending, claiming that they could never get a great angle to properly call it.

If they thought it was hard to make that call and always defaulted to an "automatic" goaltend, it may even be harder now with the new rule (depending on how it is finally written) to decide if the ball was below the ring, or above the ring, with an inch, or fractions of an inch, between the bottom of the backboard and the level of the ring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053934)

Maybe we need a general statement (if that's the intention of the NFHS) that once the ball hits the backboard on a field goal attempt, it's off limits, on the way up, on the way down, above the ring, below the ring, outside the cylinder (goaltending), inside the cylinder (basket interference), as long as it has a chance to go in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1053936)

Pre this change, would you of allowed the shot to finish if a defensive player slapped the opposite side board before whacking the player or kill it immediately and wave off the basket?

The ball does not become dead until the try for a field goal ends, so the basket would count (if the ball went in) if the whistle sounded for (old rule) a slapping the backboard technical foul (old rule intentionally) if the whistle was sounded immediately (before the ball went in the basket).