No More Offensive Goaltending ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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?

[Raymond]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good idea, seems simple ...

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!

[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

[SNIPERBBB]

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