The consequences of NFHS Rules Changes per R4-S6 and R10-S4.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Only a miniscule number of OhioHSAA Registered Basketball Officials have received their 2025-26 NFHS Rules and Case Books and Officials Manual. That said thanks to my sources (Billy Mac is one of them, .) I have started to compile a list of Unintended Editorial Changes regarding R4-S6 and R10-S4:

2025-26 NFHS Basketball Rules Book
Rule 4, Section 6, Basketball Interference

2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A1 is now 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A1.

R4-S6-A2 and EXCEPTION is added as the new Definition of Basketball Interference which causes 2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A4b to be DELETED in 2025-26 NFHS R1-S4-A4.


2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A2 and EXCEPTION is now 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A3 and EXCEPTION.


2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A3 is now 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A4.


2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A4 is now 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A5.

2025-26 NFHS Basketball Rules Book
Rule 10, Section 4, Player Technical (Fouls)

Section 4: Player Technical
A player shall not:

2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A2 is now DELETED in 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4.

2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A3 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A2.

2024-25 NFHS R10-S4:
Article 4: Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap for field goal is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A4a is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A3.

2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A4b is now DELETED in 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A4 per 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A2 and EXCEPTION.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A5 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A4.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A6 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A5.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A7 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A6.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A8 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A7.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A9 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A8.


2024-25 NFHS R10-S4-A10 is now 2025-26 NFHS R10-S4-A9.


MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Mark,

Is this just a list of factual things that changed, or are you saying that the changes caused other issues? I am just wonderin,g as I have been studying the changes and see them as mostly uneventful, other than the technical foul part that IMO is not as big a deal as others seem to make it to be at this stage in the game.

Peace

[Raymond]

I can't read half the original post because of the bright font I can't see very well against the white background.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is this just a list of factual things that changed, or are you saying that the changes caused other issues? I am just wondering as I have been studying the changes and see them as mostly uneventful, other than the technical foul part that IMO is not as big a deal as others seem to make it to be at this stage in the game.

I agree with JRutledge about the purpose of Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s thread.

Why was it posted?

I did, and in some respects still do, have some questions about the rule change.

With a new definition of basket interference, it appears that we will now, for the first time ever, may be allowed to award a basket if the vibration caused by a slap, intentional or otherwise, affects the try.

Fans have been pleading for this for at least forty-four years.

It doesn't appear to be "automatic", the slap and vibration have to affect the ability of the ball to enter the basket.

At the same time, if a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard, with no intent to try to block the try, this is still a player technical foul, whether the ball enters the basket, or not.

In essence, in some specific cases we can both award the basket (basketball interference) and additionally charge a technical foul.

Do I have this interpretation correct?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Mark,

Is this just a list of factual things that changed, or are you saying that the changes caused other issues? I am just wondering as I have been studying the changes and see them as mostly uneventful, other than the technical foul part that IMO is not as big a deal as others seem to make it to be at this stage in the game.

Peace

Jeff:

First: Most of the changes are the renumbering of Articles. We have to be careful when quoting a Case Book Play is no longer in the Case Book but still is in effect because the Rule has not changed but the Sections and Articles have been renumbered: e.g. 2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A4 is now R4-S6-A5.

Second: With regard to R4-S6, the NFHS in all of its Pre-Season Publications about the "New Definition of Basket Interference" the NFHS kept referring to the "New" R4-S6-A1a and R4-S6-A1b in the 2025-26 NFHS Rules when there is no New" R4-S6-A1a and R4-S6-A1b in the 2025-26 NFHS Rules. Instead, the "New" R4-S6-A1a is really the 2024-25 NFHS R4-S6-A1 which also the 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A1. While the "New" R4-S6-A1b is actually the 2025-26 NFHS R4-S6-A2, with the succeeding Articles in the 2024-25 NFHS R6-A4 being renumbered.

Similar changes occur in R10-S4 which were made necessary because of the changes made in R4-S6.

Mark, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with JRutledge about the purpose of Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s thread.

Why was it posted?

I did, and in some respects still do, have some questions about the rule change.

With a new definition of basket interference, it appears that we will now, for the first time ever, may be allowed to award a basket if the vibration caused by a slap, intentional or otherwise, affects the try.

Fans have been pleading for this for at least forty-four years.

It doesn't appear to be "automatic", the slap and vibration have to affect the ability of the ball to enter the basket.

At the same time, if a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard, with no intent to try to block the try, this is still a player technical foul, whether the ball enters the basket, or not.

In essence, in some specific cases we can both award the basket (basketball interference) and additionally charge a technical foul.

Do I have this interpretation correct?

Billy:

I just responded to Jeff's question. I was not commenting about the change to the actual definition of Basket Interference I was commenting that required the renumbering of some of the Articles from 2024-25 to 2025-26 in both R4-S6 and R10-S4. We know from experience that renumbering of Sections and/or Articles can cause confusing in Rules References when reading a Case Book Play that is no longer in the Case Book but is still in effect because the Rules pertaining to the CB Play have not changed just the numbering of the Sections and Articles.

Mark, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I can't read half the original post because of the bright font I can't see very well against the white background.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Raymond:

Really?! I wear tri-focals and I am blind in one eye and I cannot see out of my other eye, and I can read the colors easily.

The use of colors is a technique that I learned from my professor of my Structural Analysis classes in engineering school, and I passed it on to Mark, Jr. when he entered engineering school.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with JRutledge about the purpose of Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s thread.

Why was it posted?

I did, and in some respects still do, have some questions about the rule change.

With a new definition of basket interference, it appears that we will now, for the first time ever, may be allowed to award a basket if the vibration caused by a slap, intentional or otherwise, affects the try.

Fans have been pleading for this for at least forty-four years.

It doesn't appear to be "automatic", the slap and vibration have to affect the ability of the ball to enter the basket.

At the same time, if a defensive player intentionally slaps the backboard, with no intent to try to block the try, this is still a player technical foul, whether the ball enters the basket, or not.

In essence, in some specific cases we can both award the basket (basketball interference) and additionally charge a technical foul.

Do I have this interpretation correct?

All I will say is this came from the college side; let us not reinvent the wheel. It has been done for years before.

Also, in my time, I can hold on maybe one hand where a player slapped the backboard and was not trying to in some way block the shot. But if it does happen, I guess we have some options now.

But this is again not an automatic thing; it is a judgment thing. You have to factor things in play just like you did before, but with possibly a different result.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Raymond:



Really?! I wear tri-focals and I am blind in one eye and I cannot see out of my other eye, and I can read the colors easily.



The use of colors is a technique that I learned from my professor of my Structural Analysis classes in engineering school, and I passed it on to Mark, Jr. when he entered engineering school.



MTD, Sr.

My color blindness led a co-worker of mine who is a coder to change how he displayed colors on his graphical output. From that he realized there are a lot of people like me who can't see it when you have bright reds against a black or dark background and those bright orange and green and yellow shades against a white back ground. From that point on I became his test pilot on readability before he released his products.

My color blindness prevented me from applying to any electrical jobs when I joined the military. I also have poor depth perception where things look a lot closer than they really are. I did so bad on that test at the MEPS physical, the technician yelled at me for not taking it seriously.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But this is again not an automatic thing; it is a judgment thing. You have to factor things in play just like you did before, but with possibly a different result.

Actually, three subjective decisions.

1) Was it an actual block attempt or was the defensive player intentionally letting off some steam and taking it out on the backboard (especially the other side of the backbord)?

2) Did the ring and/or backboard actually vibrate?

2) Did the vibrating ring and/or backboard actually affect the trajectory of the shot while the ball was still on the backboard, on or in the basket, or within the cylinder when that vibration occurs?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My color blindness led a co-worker of mine who is a coder to change how he displayed colors on his graphical output. From that he realized there are a lot of people like me who can't see it when you have bright reds against a black or dark background and those bright orange and green and yellow shades against a white back ground. From that point on I became his test pilot on readability before he released his products.

My color blindness prevented me from applying to any electrical jobs when I joined the military. I also have poor depth perception where things look a lot closer than they really are. I did so bad on that test at the MEPS physical, the technician yelled at me for not taking it seriously.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

I rescind my sarcasm. You have a valid reason.

The U.S. Navy can attest that I color vision, my depth perception, and night vision was very very good.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

At the risk of sounding like a cantankerous geezer, oh wait, I am a cantankerous geezer!

I started this particular discussion, not to rehash the who, what, when, where, and/or how of adjudicating the 'new' Definition of Basket Interference but to bring it to everyone's attention that the 'new' Definition required some changes in the numbering of Articles in two Rules for 2025-26. Nothing more, nothing less.

MTD, Sr.