No More Offensive Goaltending ...

[BillyMac]

“Offensive Goaltending Is Still A Thing ... but only on a free throw.”

Did I jump the gun on this?

I just re-read this 2025–26 Correction and Clarification.

In addition, a rule reference was incorrect as it pertained to goaltending a free throw, in which a technical foul should also be assessed for that infraction. This change has been posted on the NFHS website as follows:

*NFHS Rules Book Page 65 – Rule 9‐12 Penalty 1
See Rule 10-4-8 for the additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw.

Items marked with a single asterisk “*” have been posted on the NFHS website or addressed in a memo to state associations.

Was this Correction and Clarification only in regard to defensive goaltending on a free throw?

Offensive goaltending is not mentioned in the Correction and Clarification.

Is there now no such thing as offensive goaltending on a free throw (as I first thought)?

Do we penalize, as Raymond so elegantly interpreted, this "offensive goaltending a free throw” situation as simply an offensive free throw violation for the ball not hitting the ring in ten seconds, with no additional technical foul penalty for such an action?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

“Offensive Goaltending Is Still A Thing ... but only on a free throw.”

Did I jump the gun on this?

I just re-read this 2025–26 Correction and Clarification.

In addition, a rule reference was incorrect as it pertained to goaltending a free throw, in which a technical foul should also be assessed for that infraction. This change has been posted on the NFHS website as follows:

*NFHS Rules Book Page 65 – Rule 9‐12 Penalty 1
See Rule 10-4-8 for the additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw.

Items marked with a single asterisk “*” have been posted on the NFHS website or addressed in a memo to state associations.

Was this Correction and Clarification only in regard to defensive goaltending on a free throw?

Offensive goaltending is not mentioned in the Correction and Clarification.

Is there now no such thing as offensive goaltending on a free throw (as I first thought)?

Do we penalize, as Raymond so elegantly interpreted, this "offensive goaltending a free throw” situation as simply an offensive free throw violation for the ball not hitting the ring in ten seconds, with no additional technical foul penalty for such an action?

Billy:

2024-25 NFHS Basketball Rules Book:

R4-S22-A2: Goaltending occurs when: A player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

R9-S12: A player shall not commit goaltending, as in R4-S22.

Per your Play that we are discussing, see: “Penalty 2: If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored, and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. See Rule 10-4-9 for additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw.”

R10-S4-A9: A player shall not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.


2025-26 NFHS Basketball Rules Book:

R4-S22-A2: Goaltending occurs when: A defensive player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

R9-S12: A defensive player shall not commit goaltending, as in R4-S22.

Per your Play that we are discussing, see: “Penalty 2: If the violation is at a team's own basket, no points can be scored, and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from one of the two the designated out-of-bounds spot[s] along the end line nearest the violation. See Rule 10-4-9 for additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw.”

R10-S4-A8: A player shall not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.


1a: The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee did issue the Rules Book Correction for R9-S12, Penalty 2 on October 15, 2025 in it Rules Interpretations and Rules and Case Books Corrections publication (https://nfhs.org/resources/sports/ba...ations-2025-26).

1b: This is irony in this correction because by Definition (R4-S22-A2) and Rule (R4-S22-A2 and R9-S12) Goaltending can be committed only by Defensive Players which means R9-S12, Penalty 2 is meaningless because only Defensive Players can commit Goaltending.

2: Which leads to my Ruling in my first Post in this discussion: There was no Goaltending Violation by A2 but A2’s Touching of the Ball created a FT Violation by A1 per R9-S1-A3a.

3: And R10-S4-A8 should read: A defensive player shall not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.


MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Where's the technical foul?

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...should read: A defensive player shall not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.

Agree.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is there now no such thing as offensive goaltending on a free throw? Do we penalize, as Raymond so elegantly interpreted, this "offensive goaltending a free throw” situation as simply an offensive free throw violation for the ball not hitting the ring in ten seconds, with no additional technical foul penalty for such an action?

These were not rhetorical questions.

We've got many rule experts on this forum.

Both statements of fact (with a rationale) and statements of opinion (with a rationale) are not only accepted, but are encouraged.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

These were not rhetorical questions.



We've got many rule experts on this forum.



Both statements of fact (with a rationale) and statements of opinion (with a rationale) are not only accepted, but are encouraged.

Has something changed as far as rulings or interpretations since you first asked this question three or four months ago?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Has something changed as far as rulings or interpretations since you first asked this question three or four months ago?

Just this, but I'm not really sure what it means.

IAABO 2025–26 Corrections and Clarifications

Despite the best efforts of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, one of the ongoing challenges following the approval of new rules each year is ensuring that every related reference in both the Rules Book and Case Book is updated accurately. Even with multiple levels of review, occasional inconsistencies and oversights can still occur.

Once the NFHS publishes these changes, IAABO leaders must then interpret and integrate them into the IAABO Rules Guide, a process that can also present challenges. From time to time, we identify areas where revisions or clarifications are needed to ensure consistency across all publications.

This article highlights the corrections and clarifications that have been identified and addresses several frequently asked questions that have surfaced as officials prepare for the upcoming season.

Items marked with a single asterisk “*” have been posted on the NFHS website or addressed in a memo to state associations. Items marked with two asterisks “**” have been approved but not yet published.

Any affected items appearing in IAABO publications will be corrected in the 2026–27 (IAABO) Handbook. Some of the items that are currently unpublished may be updated throughout the season and we will update this information as it become available …

Goaltending

… In addition, a rule reference was incorrect as it pertained to goaltending a free throw, in which a technical foul should also be assessed for that infraction. This change has been posted on the NFHS website as follows:

*NFHS Rules Book Page 65 – Rule 9‐12 Penalty 1
See Rule 10-4-8 9 for the additional penalty for goaltending during a free throw.

I would love to see the posting on the NFHS website or the memo to state associations.

[BillyMac]

In the context of Rule 10-4-8, the "officials discussions" confirm that despite the philosophical shift away from "offensive goaltending" for field goals, the technical foul penalty for interfering with a free throw is intentionally preserved because the act is seen as fundamentally disrupting a critical, non-live-ball scoring attempt, warranting a severe penalty.

Got this (above) from Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence will seldom admit that it doesn't know an answer and has been known to "hallucinate".

Certainly not in any way reliable.

"Officials discussions" may, in fact, refer to the Official Forum and other similar websites.

Asked for specifics (case plays, citations, etc.), hopefully from NFHS, and got little, just got this:

Rule 10-4-9 (or Art. 9): Specifically prohibits a player from committing goaltending during a free throw.

Simple question: Is it still a technical foul (and a free throw violation) for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw?

Why do I keep running into brick walls regarding this very simple question?

I would prefer a yes answer, but I would fully accept a no answer from a reliable source, preferably the NFHS, maybe even IAABO.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In the context of Rule 10-4-8, the "officials discussions" confirm that despite the philosophical shift away from "offensive goaltending" for field goals, the technical foul penalty for interfering with a free throw is intentionally preserved because the act is seen as fundamentally disrupting a critical, non-live-ball scoring attempt, warranting a severe penalty.

Got this (above) from Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Stopped reading right there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Stopped reading right there.

I'm grasping at straws here.

Was hoping to get a link to a reliable source from Gemini AI, not an "answer" from Gemini AI itself. Gemini AI just restated the rule that it is a technical foul to goaltend a free throw.

Also tried ChatGPT, again looking for a link to a reliable source, didn't get a link to a reliable source, other than a statement regarding "no more offensive goaltending".

I broached this with my local interpreter (who also happens to be our state interpreter) who replied that offensive goaltending a free throw was an extremely rare sitation but that it would be discussed with other Connecticut local interpreters, never heard back other than the possibility of charging an "unsporting" technical foul ( "... not limited to ...") for such an act.

Raymond gave us a great interpretation of this (touch) being the end of the free throw and a free throw violation (ten seconds) and I was happy with that (no technical foul) until IAABO recently came up with a "word salad" about a clarification regarding free throw goaltending.

Simple question: Is it still a technical foul (unsporting or otherwise) and a free throw violation for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw?

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence will seldom admit that it doesn't know an answer and has been known to "hallucinate".

Certainly not in any way reliable.

AI is worse than straight asking google for the rules. We keep trying to tell coaches and fans to stop using google to look up the rules, we definitely dont need to start asking it. I dont know if I'd even trust an AI model that was trained completely only with the most current rule, case book and interpretations.

I had a coach a few years ago after I whacked his assistant for insulting my partner try to tell me that he could still use the coaches box because it wasn't him that got the technical. Couple minutes later after apparently pulling out the phone he started saying he looked it up on google and continued to argue saying that I was wrong. well he got his own T so he definitely got to sit down after that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

AI is worse than straight asking google for the rules. We keep trying to tell coaches and fans to stop using google to look up the rules, we definitely dont need to start asking it. I dont know if I'd even trust an AI model that was trained completely only with the most current rule, case book and interpretations.

I had a coach a few years ago after I whacked his assistant for insulting my partner try to tell me that he could still use the coaches box because it wasn't him that got the technical. Couple minutes later after apparently pulling out the phone he started saying he looked it up on google and continued to argue saying that I was wrong. well he got his own T so he definitely got to sit down after that.

👍

MTD, Sr.