The Official Forum

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)

BillyMac Tue Jul 15, 2025 10:10am
NFHS 2025-26 Basketball Comments On The Rules ...
 
NFHS 2025-26 Basketball Comments On The Rules

4-6-1a & b (NEW): The definition of basket interference has been expanded to include situations in which a player slaps or strikes the backboard, causing the backboard or ring to vibrate, while the ball is in a scoring position. Specifically, if the ball is touching the backboard, located on or within the basket, or within the imaginary cylinder above the basket, such contact is now considered basket interference. This revision ensures that actions which may unfairly influence the outcome of a scoring attempt — by affecting the ball’s trajectory or stability of the basket — are penalized appropriately. Officials now have clearer guidance when adjudicating plays involving contact with the backboard during shot attempts.

4-22-1 & 2: The removal of offensive goaltending violations simplifies the enforcement of goaltending by eliminating the need for officials to determine whether a ball touched above the ring was a legitimate try or a pass. Previously, officials were required to interpret player intent — whether the ball was intentionally released as a try — which created inconsistencies in enforcement. By removing offensive goaltending, the rule now places responsibility solely on the defense, streamlining decision-making and supporting the flow of play near the basket. This change may also contribute to more scoring opportunities in contested situations around the rim.

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.

4-34-1: The definition of a “player” has been clarified to specify that a player is one of the five team members who is legally on the playing court, except during time-outs or intermissions. This clarification provides consistency in rule enforcement, especially when dealing with bench conduct and technical fouls during non-live ball situations. Previously, the distinction between players and other team personnel during stoppages was unclear, leading to inconsistencies in the application of penalties. The updated definition ensures that officials can appropriately apply rules and maintain accountability for conduct, regardless of the game state.

7-5-4: This change provides a clearer, more consistent method for determining the throw-in location after a stoppage of play in the frontcourt when the ball has not gone out of bounds. Rather than relying on an imaginary line to divide the court, officials are now instructed to use the three-point arc as a visible demarcation line. The use of an established court marking reduces judgment errors and improves accuracy in administering throw-ins. This adjustment also enhances game flow and allows teams to better understand and anticipate throw-in positioning following violations, fouls, or other stoppages.

9-2-12 & 9-3-4 (NEW): A new rule addresses scenarios in which a thrower deliberately or deceptively delays returning to the court after stepping out of bounds and then becomes the first to touch the ball upon re-entry. Previously penalized with a technical foul, this action is now considered a violation, aligning the penalty with other similar out-of-bounds infractions. This revision lowers the severity of the penalty, encouraging more consistent and frequent enforcement by officials. It also deters deceptive tactics that could provide an unfair advantage, while preserving the fairness and integrity of the game.

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.

bob jenkins Tue Jul 15, 2025 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053902)
NFHS 2025-26 Basketball Comments On The Rules

4-6-1a & b (NEW): The definition of basket interference has been expanded to include situations in which a player slaps or strikes the backboard, causing the backboard or ring to vibrate, while the ball is in a scoring position. Specifically, if the ball is touching the backboard, located on or within the basket, or within the imaginary cylinder above the basket, such contact is now considered basket interference. This revision ensures that actions which may unfairly influence the outcome of a scoring attempt — by affecting the ball’s trajectory or stability of the basket — are penalized appropriately. Officials now have clearer guidance when adjudicating plays involving contact with the backboard during shot attempts.



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

BillyMac Tue Jul 15, 2025 02:09pm
The Ralph Sampson Rule ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053902)
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.
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.
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 Thu Jul 17, 2025 01:25pm
Quote:
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 Thu Jul 17, 2025 01:41pm
Basket Interference ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053910)
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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Jul 17, 2025 03:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053910)
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 Thu Jul 17, 2025 05:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053912)
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

Quote:
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

JRutledge Thu Jul 17, 2025 05:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1053914)
👍

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

BillyMac Thu Jul 17, 2025 06:47pm
Definition Of Goaltending ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053919)
...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 Sun Jul 20, 2025 04:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053922)
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

SNIPERBBB Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1053914)
👍

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 Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1053930)
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

BillyMac Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:40am
Let's Wait And See ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053922)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053929)
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 Mon Jul 21, 2025 02:17pm
Not Totally Impossible ..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1053929)
.. 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?

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...EL._SL500_.jpg

BillyMac Mon Jul 21, 2025 04:35pm
Off Limits ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1053933)
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.

SNIPERBBB Mon Jul 21, 2025 08:05pm
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.

JRutledge Tue Jul 22, 2025 08:51am
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

BillyMac Tue Jul 22, 2025 12:57pm
Good Angle ...
 
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.

BillyMac Tue Jul 22, 2025 01:06pm
Live Ball ...
 
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).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1