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

[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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.