No More Offensive Goaltending ...

[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 Some of the items that are currently unpublished may be updated throughout the season and we will update this information as it become available …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.

[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.

[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?

[BillyMac]

Offensive goaltending on a free throw will never happen!

Why discuss it?

The NFHS obviously felt that such a situation could happen with two past very bizarre casebook plays.

These are examples of the NFHS at its worst.

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation. (9-1 Penalty 1)

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1039858

[Raymond]

If those are past interpretations, where is the technical foul? Sounds like they are interpreting it the same way I say we should do it now if there is no such thing as offensive goaltending.

Has anything come out in the intervening years that invalidates those interpretations?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If those are past interpretations, where is the technical foul?

Sorry if I confused you moving back and forth from offensive to defensive goaltending on free throws.

They are from the past.

"A player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt" was added to the definition of goaltending in 1981.

What makes them bizarre is that no technical foul is called (as was the rule back then), but also the bizarre inbound spot (Cadillac position well after such free throw line extended Cadillac position for balls that entered the basket but did not count was eliminated).

Read the old Forum link:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1039858

These past interpretations are dumpster fires.

My point was that, at least two times in the past, the NFHS did care about the act of offensive goaltending of a free throw.

[Raymond]

Yes they did. They said it was a violation just like I said it should be. I'm not confused.

The throw-in spot ruling depends on where the appropriate throwing spot is for violations and fouls within the semicircle. That's of little consequence to me in this conversation.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They said it was a violation just like I said it should be.

Agree with your free throw violation interpretation, especially now for such action by the offense, but such situations were, from 1981, and through 2024, also, by rule, technical fouls.

Free throw violations by the defense do not count the basket, just award another free throw, so it's important to note that the goaltending penalty (count basket) probably "trumps" the free throw violation penalty.

If both occur on the same play, by the defense, use the penalty for goaltending (count the basket).

The two offensive free throw goaltending case plays I presented in my recent posts were pre 2025 case plays.

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation. (9-1 Penalty 1)

Why no technical fouls in the rulings?

My point was that, at least two times in the past, the NFHS did care about the act of offensive goaltending of a free throw.

Do they still care?

Is it still a technical foul (unsporting or otherwise) and a free throw violation (free throw ends with touch, ball doesn't hit rim in ten seconds) for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw, with penalties for "goaltending" a free throw?

I sadly believe that it is no longer a technical foul (possibly just a free throw violation), but I would like it to be a technical foul (as it was for forty-three years), possibly unsporting, thus I would like the offensive situation confirmed.

IAABOs recent "word salad" clarification regarding free throw goaltending has confused me.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree with your free throw violation interpretation, especially now for such action by the offense, but such situations were, from 1981, and through 2024, also, by rule, technical fouls.

Free throw violations by the defense do not count the basket, just award another free throw, so it's important to note that the goaltending penalty (count basket) probably "trumps" the free throw violation penalty.

If both occur on the same play, by the defense, use the penalty for goaltending (count the basket).

The two offensive free throw goaltending case plays I presented in my recent posts were pre 2025 case plays.

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation. (9-1 Penalty 1)

Why no technical fouls in the rulings?

My point was that, at least two times in the past, the NFHS did care about the act of offensive goaltending of a free throw.

Do they still care?

Is it still a technical foul (unsporting or otherwise) and a free throw violation (free throw ends with touch, ball doesn't hit rim in ten seconds) for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw, with penalties for "goaltending" a free throw?

I sadly believe that it is no longer a technical foul (possibly just a free throw violation), but I would like it to be a technical foul (as it was for forty-three years), possibly unsporting, thus I would like the offensive situation confirmed.

IAABOs recent "word salad" clarification regarding free throw goaltending has confused me.

In the 2024-25 book those plays are technicals. 9.12 sit B is a different play now. Would of been nice if they kept the same play and changed the ruling

[Raymond]

Since they say there's no longer any offensive goaltending by definition, the case play informs us how to handle such an action by the offense during a free throw. A failure of the committee would be not adding that to the free throw violation list.

Billy, do you still have a copy of last year's (or earlier) case play and it's wording which led to the ruling of a technical foul?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk