No More Offensive Goaltending ...
 

Alternating possession arrow is pointing toward A’s basket.

A1 is fouled in the act of shooting a successful field goal attempt and is awarded one free throw.

After A1 releases the free throw attempt, knucklehead A2, from a marked lane space, trying to impress his cheerleader girlfriend, grabs the ball while it’s outside the imaginary cylinder and dunks it.

This is not a free throw violation.

As soon as A2 touched the ball, it ended the free throw (by definition) and the ball became dead, thus no point(s) are awarded to A1, nor to A2.

No more offensive goaltending, so no more technical foul for this act during a free throw.

Now what?

When A2 touched the ball the ball became dead with neither team in control, so go the alternating possession arrow, allowing Team A will get the ball for a throwin under their own basket.

Does this seem fair?

Was this the purpose and intent of recent rule change of no more offensive goaltending?

For the past (at least) forty-four years, this (goaltending a free throw) has been technical foul with the harsh penalty of no Team A point for the free throw, two free throws by the best free throw shooter(s) on Team B, and Team B being awarded the ball at the division line for a throwin.

Now, under this circumstance, while there will be no Team A point for the free throw, Team A will benefit by getting the ball for a throwin under their own basket.

Never happen?

Probably true for the past (at least) forty-four years, but what if Team A was down by three with one second to go the game?

Did the NFHS even consider this situation while considering this recent rule change?

Did something fall through the cracks?

Unintended consequence?

My local IAABO interpreter suggested we consider this an unsporting act and penalize accordingly.

“Not limited to” is subjective and open ended and thus subject to various individual interpretations.

Perhaps the NFHS can get out of this mess with an actual written interpretation in the casebook, or at least as an annual interpretation, of this being an unsporting act.

My Solution To This Issue ...
 

My suggested case play:

Situation: After A1 releases a free throw attempt, A2, from a marked lane space, grabs the ball while it’s outside the imaginary cylinder and dunks the ball. Ruling: When A2 touched the ball the free throw ended and the ball became dead so no point(s) are awarded. A2 is charged with a technical foul. This action is considered to be an unsporting act. If A1 is due additional free throw(s), they will be attempted with the lane cleared. Any player(s), or eligible substitute(s), on Team B will attempt two free throws and Team B will be awarded the ball at the division line opposite the table for a throwin.

I always thought it was weird that if B grabbed the ball just outside the cylinder, it was GT and a T, but if B grabbed the ball just in the cylinder, it was just BI.

Maybe the play that led to the rule scores of years ago was more of a routine "block" of the FT and nothing weird has happened since.

Free Throw Blocked Shot ...
 

Bingo, but only for the defense.

Who would block a teammate's shot?

Unless the shooter was about to break the "goaltender's" personal points record?

We still have defensive goaltending (on a free throw, or otherwise) that leads to a technical foul for such on a free throw.

My situation was for the offense "goaltending" (quotes because it's only the act itself, not longer by definition) a free throw.

Suggested Casebook Play ..
 

Anybody see any problems with my suggested casebook play?

I'm about to submit it run it up the ladder through the CIAC (Connecticut), IAABO, and eventually to the NFHS.

Is there an easier fix, maybe involving a free throw violation?

The ball failed to hit the rim on a free throw attempt. Why can't we just call the violation on the shooting team?

Violation ...
 

Good idea, seems simple, but the ball became dead as soon as it was touched by A2, and the free throw had ended.

Do we call a free throw violation after the free throw had ended?

Can we call a violation when the ball is already dead?

Do we call free throw violations on teams, or on individual players?

When the coach asks, "Who was the violation on?" (ball not touching the ring), do we answer A1 (shooter), or A2 (toucher)?

What's Good For The Goose Is Good For The Gander ...
 

Nobody should be touching the ball during a free throw attempt, offense or defense.

Verboten!

That's why it's called a free throw, free of any interference.

Been that way for at least forty-four years, always very harshly penalized with a technical foul.

In regard to free throws, why change the rule?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.Z...=Api&P=0&h=180
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.Q...=Api&P=0&h=180
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.L...=Api&P=0&h=180

If a teammate of the shooter prevents the ball from hitting the rim why wouldn't it be a violation. Quit trying to make it hard when it's very simple.

By your logic, you would be giving a ball back to the team who just committed the violation in the last second of a game. Just think about that using logical thinking.

Luckily you're not officiating at a level where this could happen. Because all those questions you ask are unnecessary. Teammate touches the ball before it gets to the ring on a free throw, the ball is dead and it's a violation. That's it. Done. You're the only one who wants to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Free Throw Violation ...
 

9-1-3-A: After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower: He/she shall throw within 10 seconds to cause the ball to enter the basket or touch the ring before the free throw ends.

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.

Raymond is 100% correct.

Careful purposeful reading of the last five words 9-1-3-A make it quite clear, especially when paired with 4-20-3.

The free throw ended when the offensive player, from a marked lane space, touched the ball, and it happened before the ball entered the basket or touched the ring.

Thanks to Raymond for not only his correct interpretation but also for his persistence in getting me back on the straight and narrow.

My local interpreter suggested that this was an unsporting act.

I like Raymond's interpretation better.

It's much simpler, and not based on a subjective interpretation of "unsporting".

My suggested casebook play was never put up "on the ladder", thus no embarrassment to me.

I'm glad that the Official Forum is back online.

Offensive Goaltending Is Still A Thing ...
 

... but only on a free throw.

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 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 (4‐22‐3, 9‐12 Penalty 1):

Another rule change that has garnered quite a bit of discussion is the goaltending rule. Now, the NFHS essentially has three distinct definitions of goaltending. One of the biggest changes was deleting the reference to offensive players within the rule. Now the rule only applies to defenders.

In addition, a third section was added to the rule to address blocked shots after a try has hit the backboard. The intention was to adopt the NCAA Men’s rule, but a key element of the wording was approved that is missing. That key aspect was that at least some part of the ball needs to be above the ring level and have a chance to go in for the rule to apply. This was not clearly indicated in the approved wording. We have approached the NFHS Rules editor, and she has approved a modification to the rule to make that clear. This approved change has yet to be published on the NFHS website or in any of their recent memos that they have released to state associations.

The proposed wording for a change to this rule is as follows:

**NFHS Rules Book Page 37 4‐22‐3
When the ball contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when any part of the ball is above the ring level and is touched by a defensive player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

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 want to apologize for joining the discussion late, but to be honest the title of the discussion did not resonate with me at first (sorry Billy) until I thought that I had better read it to see what was being discussed and Billy's initial post did resonate with me. It is not my intent to pick on Billy but he raised questions in my mind about that Play we are discussing.

All Rules references are from the 2025-26 NFHS Basketball Rules Book.

1: R9-S1-A3a: After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower: The free thrower shall throw within 10 seconds to cause the ball to enter the basket or touch the ring before the free throw ends.

2a: Billy, in his first comment said that A1’s FTA ended when A2 touched (“grabbed”) the Ball, and I believe that is an accurate statement per R4-S20-A3: 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.

2b: Billy also said: i) no FT Violation had occurred and ii) the Ball became Dead when A2 touched (“grabbed”) the Ball.

3a: Billy, in 2b(i), said that no FT Violation had occurred. My question is: Why? I agree with Billy’s statement in 2a that A1’s FTA ended when A2 touched (“grabbed”) the Ball per R4-S20-A3 but did A2’s touching (“grabbing”) A1’s FTA cause A1 to violate per R9-S1-A3?

3b: If A2’s touching (“grabbing”) the Ball indeed cause A1 to commit a FT Violation per R9-S1-A3 then I agree with Billy saying that the Ball became Dead when A2 touched (“grabbed”) the Ball.

3c: But Billy said that a FT Violation did NOT occur, so I am asking the question: What caused the Ball to become Dead when A2 touched (“grabbed”) the Ball.

4: I definitely agree with Billy’s assessment that this was not Goaltending.

5: In my opinion, A2’s touching (“grabbing”) the Ball is a FT Violation by A1 which causes the Ball to become Dead. Team B is awarded a Designated Spot Throw-in at the nearest Designated Throw-in Spot on the Endline in Team B’s Backcourt.

MTD, Sr.

Jumped The Gun ???
 

“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.

Where's The Baby ???
 

Where's the technical foul?

Agree.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.G...=Api&P=0&h=180

What'cha Call Experts ......
 

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.G...=Api&P=0&h=180

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

Corrections and Clarifications Goaltending ...
 

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.

Why Is This So Hard To Pin Down ???
 

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.

Stopped reading right there.

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.

Reliable Sources ...
 

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?

How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin ???
 

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/f5...acd0393b1a.jpg

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

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

Bizzare ...
 

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.

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

1981 Through 2024 ...
 

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

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

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. A2 is also assessed a technical foul. Team B will be given two free throws. Following the free throws Team B will be awarded the ball for a designated spot throw-in at the division line opposite the table. (9-1 Penalty 1, 10-4-9)

Last year's book

Confirmed ...
 

Thanks SNIPERBBB and Raymond.

The last few posts have been very informative.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4aeae328c7.jpg

It appears that the NFHS has intentionally and deliberately wiped clean any casebook play referencing offensive goaltending on a free throw.

So getting rid of a technical foul for such action was not an unintended consequence, or an oversight, but an intentional and deliberate decision.

That's probably enough confirmation for me.

It’s really true, there really is no longer any such action as offensive goaltending, for a field goal try, a pass, or a free throw attempt.

At least we found three past casebook plays, that while worded slightly different, did tell us that the NFHS did, at one time, consider such a situation, it's not like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.

The recent IAABO "word salad" clarification regarding free throw goaltending is still confusing me, but I'm now pretty sure that there is, indeed, no longer any offensive goaltending.

Let's Take A Poll ...
 

Anybody agree with me?

Disagree with me?

I've got a girls middle school game on Thursday and I want to be prepared if an offensive player "goaltends" a free throw.

I think if you review all the posts in this thread, you'll figure out who agrees with you and who doesn't. Or if there is a combination of agreeing with part of what you say but not something else.

I've said all I can say on the subject. There's nothing new I can say. What do you think based on what I've already posted?

What do you think based on what you read in the rule and case books?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

No Longer Any Offensive Goaltending ...
 

There is no longer any such action as offensive goaltending, for a field goal try, a pass, or a free throw attempt.

There is no longer any offensive goaltending.

Period.

Until I hear otherwise.

Fair warning to everyone: There also may not be Goaltending, PERIOD!!
 

I know that BillyMac and I have come to the conclusion that per NFHS Rules that the correct RULING for the Situation that he described is that A2's touching the Ball caused A1 to commit a FT Violation.

This past Thursday afternoon Mark, Jr. and I discussed BillyMac's Situation and thirty seconds into our discussion Mark said that the wording of the change to R4-S12-A1 actually (or inadvertently, depending upon how one wants to look at the wording) did away with the Goaltending Rule completely.

I am working on a position paper which I will post on, hopefully, Monday or Tuesday.

MTD, Sr.