NFHS Rule Change Regarding Goaltending ...

[BillyMac]

IAABO (not the NFHS) came out with this interpretation regarding the ball in contact with the backboard goaltending and "above the rim" in a recent "You Make The Call" video summary:

Key 2025-26 NFHS Rule Change Regarding Goaltending

Goaltending Rule Clarification – 2025-26
For clarity, officials should now recognize that there are three distinct goaltending definitions in NFHS rules:

1. Traditional Goaltending (NFHS 4-22-1)
A defensive player commits goaltending by touching the ball during a try or tap for goal while it is:
- In its downward flight,
- Is entirely above ring level,
- has a chance to enter the basket in flight,
- and is inside the imaginary basket cylinder.

Key Takeaway:
Beginning this season, this infraction applies only to the defense and requires the ball to be above the ring with the possibility of scoring.

2. Free Throw Goaltending (NFHS 4-22-2)
A defensive player commits goaltending by touching a free throw attempt outside the cylinder—even if the ball is not above the ring level.
This is a goaltending violation and also a technical foul (NFHS 10-4-9).

3. New for 2025-26 – Backboard Contact = Downward Flight (NFHS 4-22-3)
New Rule: When the ball contacts the backboard, it is considered to be in its downward flight by rule.
If a defensive player touches the ball after it hits the backboard, and the ball has a chance to score, this is goaltending.

Key Distinction:
This rule modifies NFHS 4-22-1 by removing the judgment of whether the ball is actually on its way down—the backboard contact alone determines that.

Interpretation Note:
While NFHS Rule 4-22-3 does not specify that the ball must be above the ring, IAABO has confirmed through discussions with NFHS that an upcoming interpretation will mirror the NCAA Men’s rule: If any part of the ball is above the ring level after backboard contact and is then touched by a defender, goaltending has occurred.

Backboard Logistics – Practical Application
On some backboards, the ring is 12 inches above the bottom of the backboard; on others, it may only be 6 inches. A boy's basketball is about 9.4 inches, and a girl's ball is 9.1 inches in height. Given those dimensions, it is highly probable that part of the ball is above the ring after striking the backboard, making goaltending likely under the new rule.

[SNIPERBBB]

I really don't see them adding a clarification or interp adding that (part of) the ball must be above the rim. Not something that should be done at the HS levels.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I really don't see them adding a clarification or interp adding that (part of) the ball must be above the rim. Not something that should be done at the HS levels.

Not much room between the bottom of the backboard and the level of the ring on most high school backboards.

[Raymond]

"- AND is inside the imaginary basket cylinder."

When did that become a requirement for GT?

Then, one sentence says the ball hitting the backboard equates to downward flight and then another sentence says they're going to match the NCAA rule that says part of the ball must be above the ring.


NFHS is it incapable of stealing rules without a bunch of confusion.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not much room between the bottom of the backboard and the level of the ring on most high school backboards.

So we're going to quibble over an inch or two on these calls?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"- and is inside the imaginary basket cylinder."
When did that become a requirement for GT?

Great observation.

Inside the imaginary cylinder would be basket interference.

Outside is goaltending (with other assumptions).

Hopefully we can blame IAABO, not the NFHS.

However, I seem to remember the NFHS carelessly leaving the imaginary cylinder out of the definition of goaltending in the rule book many years ago and then they had to correct it.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you again.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

So we're going to quibble over an inch or two on these calls?

I'm not, I mainly do middle school games and half of them are girls games.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

You always make it sound like IAABO is coming out with things totally different from the NF. They actually are not. Maybe they did at one time, but not now. At least not with rules.

So if IAABO stated this, the NF has taken that position as well.

It was clarified in the video and talking to TJ that the rules clarification are coming from the NF.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Raymond

NFHS is it incapable of stealing rules without a bunch of confusion.

I've noticed that when it comes to football. They seem unable to resist wanting to appear original, damn the inconvenient, confusing, and unanticipated consequences.

And it wasn't always that way! 45 years ago and thereabouts they eagerly participated in liaison committees partly to hammer out such matters. Something changed about their attitude. Now it's like they agree on solutions, but don't want to admit when someone else finds them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You always make it sound like IAABO is coming out with things totally different from the NF. They actually are not. Maybe they did at one time, but not now.

True.

A representative from IAABO International has had a seat at the table for the past several NFHS Rule Committee meetings.

I don't know if that will be the case in the future, but I sure hope so.

IAABO represents 15,000 basketball officials, mostly here the United States, and now has a stated goal of trying to expand into places where there are not presently any local or state IAABO boards.

I don't know of a larger national high school basketball officials organization, so I believe that they should have permanent seat at the NFHS Rules Committee table.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great observation. Inside the imaginary cylinder would be basket interference. Outside is goaltending (with other assumptions). Hopefully we can blame IAABO, not the NFHS. However, I seem to remember the NFHS carelessly leaving the imaginary cylinder out of the definition of goaltending in the rule book many years ago and then they had to correct it.

Seem to remember?

It was actually me that corrected it!

BillyMac's Suggested NFHS Rule Changes:

If you have a situation where a player touches the ball during a field-goal try, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, then, by strict interpretation of the written definition, the official can call either a goaltending violation, or a basket interference violation.

The definition of goaltending did contain the requirement of the ball having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder through the 2003-04 season. For some unknown reason the rule was edited, without comment, or announcement, for the 2004-05 season and that part of the definition was dropped.

2002-03 NFHS 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while: a) the ball is in downward flight. b) the entire ball is above the level of the basket ring. c) the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight. d) the ball is not touching an imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base.

2012-13 NFHS 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight.

This omission (outside the cylinder) needs to be corrected.

It was finally corrected in 2015-16.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post966699

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

" ... and is inside the imaginary basket cylinder." When did that become a requirement for GT?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great observation. Inside the imaginary cylinder would be basket interference. Outside is goaltending (with other assumptions). Hopefully we can blame IAABO, not the NFHS.

I emailed T. J. Halliday, IAABO International Director of Learning and Development, and it has been corrected.

Goaltending Rule Clarification – 2025-26
For clarity, officials should now recognize that there are three distinct goaltending definitions in NFHS rules:

1. Traditional Goaltending (NFHS 4-22-1)
A defensive player commits goaltending by touching the ball during a try or tap for goal while it is:
- In it's downward flight,
- Is entirely above ring level,
- has a chance to enter the basket in flight,
- and is outside the imaginary basket cylinder.

Key Takeaway:
Beginning this season, this infraction applies only to the defense and requires the ball to be above the ring with the possibility of scoring.

2. Free Throw Goaltending (NFHS 4-22-2)
A defensive player commits goaltending by touching a free throw attempt outside the cylinder—even if the ball is not above the ring level.
This is a goaltending violation and also a technical foul (NFHS 10-4-9).

3. New for 2025-26 – Backboard Contact = Downward Flight (NFHS 4-22-3)
New Rule: When the ball contacts the backboard, it is considered to be in its downward flight by rule.
If a defensive player touches the ball after it hits the backboard, and the ball has a chance to score, this is goaltending.

Key Distinction:
This rule modifies NFHS 4-22-1 by removing the judgment of whether the ball is actually on its way down, the backboard contact alone determines that.

Interpretation Note:
While NFHS Rule 4-22-3 does not specify that the ball must be above the ring, IAABO has confirmed through discussions with NFHS that an upcoming interpretation will mirror the NCAA Men’s rule:If any part of the ball is above the ring level after backboard contact and is then touched by a defender, goaltending has occurred.

Backboard Logistics – Practical Application
On some backboards, the ring is 12 inches above the bottom of the backboard; on others, it may only be 6 inches. A boy's basketball is about 9.4 inches, and a girl's ball is 9.1 inches in height.Given those dimensions, it is highly probable that part of the ball is above the ring after striking the backboard, making goaltending likely under the new rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I've noticed that when it comes to football. They seem unable to resist wanting to appear original, damn the inconvenient, confusing, and unanticipated consequences.

And it wasn't always that way! 45 years ago and thereabouts they eagerly participated in liaison committees partly to hammer out such matters. Something changed about their attitude. Now it's like they agree on solutions, but don't want to admit when someone else finds them.

They are certainly getting better (meaning the NF Basketball committee). But they still like to not make things clear when it comes to the actual change when they could be. I stopped doing HS football the last couple of years and I know they adopted some college-like rules, but not sure how they ultimately implemented them. It just should not be that hard. Just take the damn language or make the interpretation and application the exact same.

[SNIPERBBB]

If we're to say that any part of the ball is above the rim after the ball touches the backboard is off limits, it really should just be that any ball that touches the backboard with a chance to go is eligible for a GT violation. Just to make it simpler and we're not quibbling about if the ball was a quarter inch above or below when it was touched.

If they want it to be completely above the rim, let's just forget the rule exists.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Just to make it simpler and we're not quibbling about if the ball was a quarter inch above or below when it was touched.

This is why I carry a tape measure in my pants pocket along with my spare whistle and NFHS visiting team jersey gray color spectrum chart.



I was never a Boy Scout, but I always like to "Be Prepared".

One never knows when a visiting team will walk into a gymnasium with gray jerseys!

If that happens, I just whip out my gray color spectrum chart.