IAABO NFHS New Rules, Etc. ...
 

Zoochy recently found these on the IAABO website.

Thanks Zoochy.

International Association Of Approved Basketball Officials

NFHS Rules Changes, Editorial Revisions and Other Changes

4-22-1 & 2 Goaltending
Goaltending occurs when:
ART. 1 .A defensive player touches the ball during a try or tap for field goal while the ball is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level, has the possibility of entering the basket in flight and is not touching the basket cylinder;
ART. 2 A defensive player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

Rationale: Limiting goaltending to defensive players simplifies the rule and enhances consistency in enforcement. Offensively, there is no practical incentive for a player to intentionally goaltend their own team’s shot. By removing the possibility of offensive goaltending, officials no longer need to determine whether a ball in flight is a legitimate try or a pass, reducing subjectivity and improving clarity. This change streamlines decision-making for both officials and players and supports the flow of play by allowing more scoring opportunities at the basket.

4-22-3 Goaltending
ART. 3 When the ball contacts the backboard, 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.

Rationale: Clarifying that a try contacting the backboard means it is on its downward flight addresses a frequent misunderstanding among coaches, players, and fans. This definition helps officials apply the goaltending rule more consistently and enhances the accuracy of enforcement.

4-34-1 Players/Bench Personnel/Substitutes/Team Members
ART. 1 A player is one of the five team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except during time-outs or intermissions.
ART. 2 Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s). During time-out or intermissions, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

Rationale: This change resolves a long-standing inconsistency in how the five players in the game are defined during time-outs versus intermissions. By clarifying that these players become bench personnel, enforcement of the rule becomes more consistent by eliminating the need to determine which team members had been in the game when a time-out was granted

7-5-3, 7-5-4 Resumption-Of-Play Procedure, Throw-Ins
ART. 3 After a violation (9-1, 9-2, 9-4 through 9-13) by either team, a foul by either team before the bonus is in effect or any other stoppage in play, the throw-in location will be determined by the location of the violation/foul or the location of the ball when the stoppage occurs. If the throw-in is to be in the team's frontcourt or backcourt, it shall be at either the nearest 28-foot mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line along the end line. (Diagram 5)
ART. 4 Officials shall determine the designated spot by using three-point line. If the stoppage of play on or within the three-point line, the designated spot shall be the nearest point on the end line 3 feet outside the lane line.(See Number 1 on Diagram 5).If the stoppage occurs outside the three-point line , the designated spot shall be the nearest sideline at the 28-foot line. (See Number 2 on Diagram 5).

Rationale: This change provides clearly visible existing court markings to determine designated throw-in spots after stoppages of play (other than out-of-bounds) and eliminates reliance on an undefined “imaginary line”. This provides officials with a more consistent and objective reference, reduces ambiguity, and improves the accuracy and efficiency of resumption-of-play procedures.

9-2-12 Throw-In Provisions
ART. 2 The thrower shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds and then become the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court.

Rationale: Previously penalized as a technical foul, this change will now align with the penalty for similar violations, such as a player purposely or deceitfully delaying their return from out of bounds. By reducing the severity of the penalty, officials are more likely to enforce the rule, leading to more consistent application.

10-4-3, 4-6-2 (NEW) Player Technical
ART. 3. Illegally contact the backboard/ring by placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
Basket Interference
Basket Interference occurs when a player:
ART. 2. Slaps or strikes the backboard causing the backboard or basket to vibrate while the ball is on or within either basket or is touching the backboard or within the cylinder.

Rationale: This revision redefines the act of slapping or striking the backboard that it results in vibration during a scoring attempt, from a technical foul to a basket interference violation. By removing the need to judge a player's intent, for example, during attempted blocked shots, this change promotes more objective and consistent officiating. It standardizes enforcement by aligning this action with other basket interference provisions, simplifying decision making for officials

4-19-3c FOUL
ART. 3 An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player

Rationale: This editorial revision addresses a contradiction between Rule 4-19-3 and Casebook 4.19.3D, which recognizes strategic fouling near the end of a game as an acceptable tactic. The current rule language implies that all attempts to stop the clock should be considered intentional fouls, which limits officials’ discretion and conflicts with common game strategy. By clarifying this language, the rule allows officials to distinguish between excessive or non-legitimate contact and routine strategic fouls, supporting more consistent and practical enforcement

Continued ...
 

5.2.1c Three-Point Try
5.2.1 SITUATION C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is above the level of the ring and/or has a chance to go in. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown by A1 from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area. COMMENT: In all situations, when there is no possibility of the ball entering the basket from above and the touching/deflection causes the goal to be successful, it shall be a two-point goal.

Rationale: This editorial revision clarifies that the thrown ball must be released from behind the three-point line, be above the ring level, and have a chance to enter the basket to qualify as a three-point goal.

6-3-2a,6-3-5b Jump-Ball Administration
ART. 2 When the official is ready and until the ball is tossed, nonjumpers shall not:
a. Move onto the center restraining circle (within 3 feet).
b. Change position around the center restraining circle.
ART. 5 Until the tossed ball is touched by one or both jumpers, nonjumpers shall not:
a. Have either foot break the plane of the center restraining circle cylinder.
b. Take a position in any occupied space (within 3 feet of the center restraining circle).

Rationale: This rule change explicitly incorporates the 3-foot depth around the center restraining circle, as defined in Casebook Play 6.3.2, into the rule language. By clearly specifying the restricted area for non-jumpers before and during the jump ball, the change enhances clarity and consistency in enforcement.

10-5-2 Bench Technical
ART. 2 Enter the court unless it is to attend to an injured player

Rationale: The change clarifies that coaches and bench personnel may enter the court to attend to an injured player without needing explicit permission from an official.

10-2-5 Team Technical
ART. 5 Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out, or intermission, or during a substitution process

Rationale: This change clarifies that all five players must return to the court together, or be present on the court, before play resumes following a time-out, intermission, or substitution process

4.11.2A Continuous Motion
A-1 has ended his/her dribble in the free throw lane; In (a) is stepping toward the basket; (b) is pivoting toward the basket; In both cases, B-1 fouls A-1. In (a), legally finishes his/her last step. In (b), complete the pivot; before immediately jumping to attempt a try. RULING: In (a) and (b), if the try is successful, the goal counts. If the try is unsuccessful, A1 will be awarded 2 free throws as it was a 2-point attempt. A player with the ball is pivoting or stepping when fouled may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. (4-11-2, 4-41-3) COMMENT: The try starts when the player begins the motion, which habitually precedes the release of the ball. After a player ends a dribble and is stepping or pivoting toward the goal when fouled, the player should be considered in the act of shooting if the player continues the motion and releases the ball on a try

Rationale: At the high school level, the act of shooting is considered to have begun when the player is pivoting or stepping toward the basket. This differs from how other levels of play which has required “upward movement” to establish the beginning of the shooting motion

4.12.2C Player And/Or Team Control
4.12.2 SITUATION C: With 3.9 seconds remaining in the 4th quarter, A-1’s throw-in pass is deflected into the air by B-1. While the ball is in the air, an official inadvertently sounds his/her whistle. After the whistle, the game clock still shows 3.9 seconds remaining in the quarter. RULING: The clock shall remain at 3.9 seconds, with Team A awarded a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was deflected by B-1. While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control. Team A maintained control, and they will be awarded a throw-in nearest to where the ball last in contact with a player on the court when the whistle sounded. The officials would not have rule support to take time off the clock as no player on the court ever gained control of the ball(4-12-4, 4-36-2a, 4-42-5a)

Rationale: Other case book plays state that team control during throw-in only apply to offensive fouls. This clarification expands that concept to include inadvertent whistles. In cases such as this, control remains with the team that completed the throw-in. However, since no control was not established on the court, no rule based counts (closely guarded, 3-second, etc.) would be in effect. Unless officials have definite knowledge, NFHS rules do not support taking time off the clock. Previously, because team control was tied only to offensive fouls, officials may have mistakenly used the alternating-possession arrow in this situation to resume play. This update provides clearer guidance for managing inadvertent whistles and addressing timing situations without penalizing the team in control

4.15 Comment Dribble –Legal And Illegal Movement
4.15 COMMENT: It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from a player's hand, when a player fumbles, or when a player bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player is in control of the ball, bats, throws, or pushes the ball to the floor, and is the first to touch the ball after it returns from the floor. It is not dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

Rationale: The current rules do not provide a clear, singular definition of what constitutes a dribble, leading to inconsistent enforcement of traveling violations. By rule, a traveling violation at the start of a dribble does not occur until a dribble is completed by touching the ball after it returns from the floor. Officials have sometimes incorrectly ruled a traveling violation as soon as the ball is released to begin a dribble while the pivot foot is off the floor. Including this clarification in the casebook will improve officials’ understanding and promote consistent application of the traveling rule

Continued ...
 

4.19.3G (new) Intentional Foul
4.19.3 Situation G: Late in the fourth quarter Team A leads by three points and Team B wishes to foul to stop the clock. B-1 from behind a) places two hands; b) places and keeps one hand; or c) is unable to keep a hand on the back of the dribbler A1 as they move into the frontcourt. RULING: In (a) and (b), even though B1 was unable to reach for the ball, they made a legitimate play on the dribbler and committed a common foul. In (c), This is incidental contact, play should continue, and the clock should continue to run

Rationale: This clarification educates players, coaches, and officials on the proper administration of strategic fouls late in the game. It emphasizes that officials should allow more discretion in ruling common fouls when the defense makes a legitimate attempt to ball/ player. Both sections (a) and (b) are taken directly from rule 10-7-12 and would be considered a handchecking foul. Obviously if a defender uses their hands and arms to excessively contact the ball handler (push and/or grab), it would be an intentional foul. Officials are reminded to consider that the offense benefits from the clock continuing to run. Officials should avoid ruling incidental contact a foul late in the game that would not have been ruled a foul earlier in the game

4.25.1 Held Ball
Must each opponent have two hands on the ball to cause a held ball? RULING: No. A held ball could occur if one or both opponents have one or both hands on the ball. When officials judge that the ball cannot be controlled by a player without causing undue roughness, a held ball should be called. This may (or may not) occur if opponents have one or both of their hands on the ball.
Rationale: This change addresses confusion regarding the interpretation of “hand(s)” in Rule 4-25 concerning held ball situations. This clarification confirms that a held ball may occur whether one or both opponents have one or both hands on the ball. Officials should rule a held ball when the ball cannot be controlled by a player without undue roughness, regardless of the exact number of hands each player uses to contest possession. This ensures consistent and accurate application of the rule.

9.9.1H Frontcourt –Backcourt
9.9.1 SITUATION H: A1 is holding the ball in the frontcourt. A-1 steps a) on, but not over, the division line; or b) into the backcourt. RULING: This is a backcourt violation; the ball will be awarded to Team B in their frontcourt at the 28-foot mark closest to where the violation occurred.

Rationale: This case book play would help clarify that the current NFHS Interpretation of where the throw-in spot will be administered after a backcourt violation occurs when a player steps on the division line. This application of the rule differs from the NCAA Rule. Under NCAA rules, the ball would be awarded at the division line

10.4.2B Delay Returning To Court
10.4.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing a replacement has been made. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells at A5 to return and the player sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play. RULING: Team A is charged with a Team Technical for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time. (Rule 10-2-5)

Rationale: The existing interpretation contains ambiguities that complicate consistent enforcement. Officials cannot reliably determine whether the player returning to the court was legally on the court prior to substitutions or an illegal substitute. This revision replaces these uncertainties by applying a clear and objective standard: the team shall be penalized with a Team Technical for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time.

It took NFHS/IAABO 6 years to come up with a definitive ruling.
Here is my post on this website
https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/104810-inadvertent-whistle.html
Here is the ruling.
4.12.2C Player And/Or Team Control
4.12.2 SITUATION C: With 3.9 seconds remaining in the 4th quarter, A-1’s throw-in pass is deflected into the air by B-1. While the ball is in the air, an official inadvertently sounds his/her whistle. After the whistle, the game clock still shows 3.9 seconds remaining in the quarter. RULING: The clock shall remain at 3.9 seconds, with Team A awarded a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was deflected by B-1. While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control. Team A maintained control, and they will be awarded a throw-in nearest to where the ball last in contact with a player on the court when the whistle sounded. The officials would not have rule support to take time off the clock as no player on the court ever gained control of the ball(4-12-4, 4-36-2a, 4-42-5a)

Rationale: Other case book plays state that team control during throw-in only apply to offensive fouls. This clarification expands that concept to include inadvertent whistles. In cases such as this, control remains with the team that completed the throw-in. However, since no control was not established on the court, no rule based counts (closely guarded, 3-second, etc.) would be in effect. Unless officials have definite knowledge, NFHS rules do not support taking time off the clock. Previously, because team control was tied only to offensive fouls, officials may have mistakenly used the alternating-possession arrow in this situation to resume play. This update provides clearer guidance for managing inadvertent whistles and addressing timing situations without penalizing the team in control
I don't like how they said 'officials may have mistakenly used the alternating-possession'.

A lot of stuff I've been saying for years during rules discussions finally being put on paper.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

I agree with the Team Control concept, but the ball was touched and some time should come off the clock. A previous interp included some phrase such as "likely tenths of seconds" in a similar play.

No Definite Knowledge ...
 

This is the only NFHS interpretation that I'm aware of that does not require definite knowledge (visible count, mental three second count, mental end of period countdown, etc.).

2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

Goaltendng A Free Throw ...
 

Mike Goodwin "Of The North" put this bug in my ear.

4-10-9 Player Technical: A player must not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.

Old 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while the ball is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level, has the possibility of entering the basket in flight and is not touching the basket cylinder or a player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

So what happens with the new rule (no such beast as offensive goaltending) when an offensive player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt?

Offensive player grabs the free throw ball before it reaches the cylinder and dunks it?

It's still goaltending during an FTA. Doesn't matter who does it. Coach is probably benching the player for being an idiot.

Free Throw Goaltending Technical Foul ...
 

It should be, but it's not what the new rule says, at least with the information we have to work with at this time

NFHS Comments: Rules 4-22-1 and 4-22-2 were amended to indicate that only a defensive player can commit goaltending, eliminating the possibility of an offensive goaltending violation.

4-22-2 Goaltending occurs when: A defensive player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

4-10-9 Player Technical: A player must not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.

No worries, Mike Goodwin "Of The North" is working on this conundrum as we speak

By the offense on a free throw?

Free throw violation? The try was obviously going to miss, therefore the try ended without contacting the rim, therefore the shooter violated.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Why is this posted like this, like it's brand new information? We have had this stuff out for the most part since May.

BTW, the IAABO video should be out for the New Rules this weekend.

Peace

Obviously Going To Miss ???
 

I said nothing about the free throw try obviously going to miss.

Just a tall knucklehead teenager trying to impress his cheerleader girlfriend by "funneling" his teammate's free throw try into the basket.

It should be, as it's been for at least forty five years, offensive goaltending and a technical foul.

But has he NFHS produced an unintended consequence that has fallen through the cracks with its new rule?

We're going to have to wait and see until we get the NFHS Rulebook, NFHS Casebook, and the NFHS annual interpretations.

Note: Bill Russell is credited for causing the ban of offensive goaltending in basketball due to his dominance in college.

With his length and leaping ability, Russell could anticipate teammates’ missed shots and steer them into the basket.

Billy, think outside the box you like to put yourself in. As I alluded to in an earlier post, my logic has been borne out by a lot of these interpretations. For years I've been making these same arguments, usually in response to you, where you disagree with me because it's not "in the book".

If a teammate contacts the ball the try is over, the try did not contact the ring, it's a violation by the shooting team. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Technical Foul ...
 

Sounds quite rational.

Is it a violation, or did the try just end?

4-20-3: The free throw ends when the try is successful, when it is certain the try will not be successful, when the try touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead.

So, no technical foul?