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 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If a teammate of the shooter prevents the ball from hitting the rim why wouldn't it be a 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.

[BillyMac]

... 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by 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?[/B]

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.