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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-4-4b: This revision prohibits a player from intentionally contacting the backboard or ring in a manner that interferes with a scoring attempt or provides an unfair advantage. Such contact, whether during a field goal attempt or as part of a deceptive play, is now explicitly penalized with a technical foul. This change reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of scoring opportunities and aligns enforcement with the overall principle of fair play. The clarification assists officials in penalizing unsporting behavior that impacts the outcome of a play near the basket.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Blame Ralph Sampson.

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.

[JRutledge]

4-22-3 (NEW): A new provision clarifies that once the ball makes contact with the backboard during a shot attempt, it is automatically considered to be on its downward flight. Therefore, if a defensive player touches the ball after it has hit the backboard—and the ball still has a chance to enter the basket—a goaltending violation is to be called. This addition resolves a common area of confusion for officials, coaches, and players regarding when a ball is considered to be descending. The rule aligns with the intent of protecting legitimate shot attempts and offers a more objective standard for determining goaltending after backboard contact.

I am still not reading where it says the ball must be above the cylinder to be considered a GT. This really needs to be clarified because when the NCAA Men's side change the rule, they clearly made this part of the rule and clarified that portion of the prievouls rule was removed. This still sounds like they either have not changed the rule to to college rule or they have not stated very well if that is the case.

This is going to be a big part of the change. But I guess we will still have to see.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am still not reading where it says the ball must be above the cylinder to be considered a GT.

How can the ball the be "above" the cylinder, the cylinder reaches all the way to the ceiling.

A cylinder has a well defined top, bottom, and sides.

Or did you mean to say, "above the basket ring level", which is already a component of the definition of goaltending?

Goaltending is when a defensive player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket.

That now has one exception.

The new rule just tells us that we no longer have to consider whether a ball that deflects off the backboard is on its way up, or on its way down.

All the other components of goaltending are still in effect, and have not been changed, including touch (now only by the defense), try or tap, above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder, and possibility of entering the basket.

Just ignore the part about downward flight for a ball that deflects off the backboard, everything else is still in effect, and the play must meet all the other five criteria to be goaltending, including "above the basket ring level".

Absent any one of those five criteria on a ball that deflects off the backboard, and it's not goaltending.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How can the ball the be "above" the cylinder, the cylinder reaches all the way to the ceiling.

A cylinder has a well defined top, bottom, and sides.

Or did you mean to say, "above the basket ring level", which is already a component of the definition of goaltending?

Goaltending is when a defensive player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket.

That now has one exception.

The new rule just tells us that we no longer have to consider whether a ball that deflects off the backboard is on its way up, or on its way down.

All the other components of goaltending are still in effect, and have not been changed, including touch (now only by the defense), try or tap, above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder, and possibility of entering the basket.

Just ignore the part about downward flight for a ball that deflects off the backboard, everything else is still in effect, and the play must meet all the other five criteria to be goaltending, including "above the basket ring level".

Absent any one of those five criteria on a ball that deflects off the backboard, and it's not goaltending.

This is the NCAA Rule

Art. 3. Goaltending.
a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exception: Rule 10-4.1.h)

1. The ball is on its downward flight; and
2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder.

b. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward flight.

c. When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

All I am asking is the NF did not seem to adopt the part or exclude the part of the rule for GT where the ball must be completely above the ring in order to have a violation. I am trying to suggest anything other than did they adopt the NCAA Men's rule or not? Does teh top part of the basketball apply to this rule to make a ball taken off the backboard as a violation? That is all I am trying to figure out. They did not say in the announcement or in the comments they were deleting that part of the rule. Because if they do not clarify this, we will have people applying the college rule and not the HS rule.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...the NF did not seem to adopt the part or exclude the part of the rule for GT where the ball must be completely above the ring in order to have a violation.

It did, but there is now one very specific exception (downward flight on a ball that hits the backboard) to the six necessary components in the definition of goaltending.

The definition of goaltending (with above the rim level) hasn't really changed, just added an exception.

...and of course, only defensive goaltending, no longer any offensive goaltending, a rule that went all the way back to Bill Russell "The Funneler" in college.

And, we'll have to wait and see what the exact rule language is in the definition of goaltending when the books finally get printed.

Lots of things can happen between now and then.

Lots of things can also happen after the books get printed based on the past forty-plus years of post printing corrections.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It did, but there is now one very specific exception (downward flight on a ball that hits the backboard) to the six necessary components in the definition of goaltending.

The definition of goaltending (with above the rim level) hasn't really changed, just added an exception.

...and of course, only defensive goaltending, no longer any offensive goaltending, a rule that went all the way back to Bill Russell "The Funneler" in college.

And, we'll have to wait and see what the exact rule language is in the definition of goaltending when the books finally get printed.

Lots of things can happen between now and then.

Lots of things can also happen after the books get printed based on the past forty-plus years of post printing corrections.

You are saying it did not change, but there is no evidence it did not change. We have not seen the rulebook or the definition. Again, this is a college rule adoption or a rule adopted from other levels. At all other levels, the classification for being completely above the rim does not apply if the ball hits the backboard first. So why would they keep that part unless they were intentionally keeping that part in the rule? Yes, they did not explicitly state that they took that part out, but they did not say it was considered for this kind of GT. So basically, you have two kinds of GT, one for the ball being shot that does not touch the backboard and another that does. When the NCAA rule changed, they were very intentional about what happens when the ball hits the backboard, even saying that if any part of the ball is above the rim, it is a violation if the ball hits the backboard first. The NF has yet to say it that way or make it clear that is their intention. All I am asking is for clarity so I know how to talk about this rule or teach it. The case play or interpretation does not make that clear.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And, we'll have to wait and see what the exact rule language is in the definition of goaltending when the books finally get printed.

Lots of things can happen between now and then.

Lots of things can also happen after the books get printed based on the past forty-plus years of post printing corrections.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are saying it did not change, but there is no evidence it did not change. We have not seen the rulebook or the definition.

Good point.

One of my Mom's favorite expressions when we asked for something special was, "Let's wait and see".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

.. the classification for being completely above the rim does not apply if the ball hits the backboard first.

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am still not reading where it says the ball must be above the cylinder to be considered a GT. This really needs to be clarified because when the NCAA Men's side change the rule, they clearly made this part of the rule and clarified that portion of the prievouls rule was removed. This still sounds like they either have not changed the rule to to college rule or they have not stated very well if that is the case.

This is going to be a big part of the change. But I guess we will still have to see.

Peace

👍

I was fully expecting a cut and paste of the NCAA Men's/Women's Goaltending Rule.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

👍

I was fully expecting a cut and paste of the NCAA Men's/Women's Goaltending Rule.

MTD, Sr.

They didn't and that is part of the confusion for those of us that know the difference.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

👍

I was fully expecting a cut and paste of the NCAA Men's/Women's Goaltending Rule.

MTD, Sr.

Since when has NFHS ever just copy pastad the NCAA? Everytime they try to adopt a rule from college, they insist on putting their own twist on it. Must be some sort or copyright issue they're trying to avoid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Since when has NFHS ever just copy pastad the NCAA? Everytime they try to adopt a rule from college, they insist on putting their own twist on it. Must be some sort or copyright issue they're trying to avoid.

I could not agree with this more. LOL!!!!

Peace