Offensive Goaltending?
 

I am unable to convince a fellow official that there can be an offensive goaltending violation under NFHS rules. Our extended discussion led to some other offensive goaltending questions and I'd like to hear from some forum participants.

NFHS Rule 4-22 Goaltending:
Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, or an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

My additional 2 cents:

1. The general rule implicitly includes "outside the cylinder" as a goaltending condition since inside the cylinder is specifically covered by basket interference (rule 4-6).

2. The rule generally uses "player" but specifically uses "opponent" for free throws since a teammate of the free thrower would violate before offensive goaltending could occur. This is described in case 9.12, situation B.

On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: The ball became dead immediately when A2 moved into the lane prematurely. Therefore, the goaltending is ignored. ...

Question 1:

In addition to the plain language of the rule, any other thoughts on making the case for or against offensive goaltending?

For example, assume the stated goaltending conditions are present. Allowing the offense to touch the ball and denying the defense the privilege would give the offense a huge unfair advantage.

By the way, I could not find an NFHS case related to offensive goaltending.


Question 2:

Under NFHS rules, can defensive goaltending occur on a free throw try?

My colleague argues no, since the free throw violation would occur first? My understanding says yes, since it would be a deferred free throw violation and the goal tending would be called immediately.

I could not find an NFHS case to address this situation.

I read a story on a recent NCAA game where the coach instructed a player to intentionally goal tend on a free throw in a close game. He apparently was not aware of the penalties. Per NCAA rules this is possible without otherwise violating since the players can enter the lane on the release. If anyone has a link to the story please share it.


Question 3:

Has anyone called offensive goaltending or can anyone site a good real game example?

1. By rule IMO offensive GT can be called. In practice it's not. Rules based way out of making the call might be the "shot"* is deemed a "pass" when when A1 touches the ball. Example: Alley-oop pass & dunk where the ball is caught in flight on the way down with a chance to go in. Offensive GT? Sure. Make that call & take a good look at the gym you're working because you won't be there again.

2. I agree with you

3. I never have called this and can't give a good example.

* Where have I seen quotey things around the word shot before? Deja vu maybe?

Yes, defensive GT can occur on a FT under NFHS rules. The ball remains live even if there is a lane violation. The GT will result in 1 point being awarded (which means there is no lane violation) and will result in a T.

As for the NCAA game....it happened and it happened recently. It was on the 2nd of two FTs when Kentucky's coach Billy Gillispie, being down 1 with little time remaining with no timeouts, instructed his center to GT the FT. His thinking was that they needed the time more than the point would hurt and that the GT would ensure that the clock wouldn't start. The same thing could have been accomplished by repeated lane violations until the FT was made but there was no guarentee they'd even call that...the GT couldn't be ignored.

1. Yes offensive goaltending does exist. Neither an offensive nor defensive player is permitted to touch a ball in flight on a try that is above the level of the ring, outside the cylinder, and has a chance to enter the basket.
The rule writers for the NFHS knew that this prohibition must apply to the offensive player as well in order to maintain a proper balance of play, as it would clearly be unfair to permit an offensive player to go after such a ball and attempt to direct it into the goal, but to forbid a defensive player from making a play on it. A tall player who is positioned near the basket would have a tremendous, and unfair, advantage if he were allowed to guide errant shots into the goal. That would in effect place a large funnel near the basket for the offensive team.

2. Yes, defensive goaltending of a FT does exist and is a technical foul in addition to a violation per NFHS 9-12 penalty 1 and 10-3-10.
The recent NCAA game to which you referred was Kentucky vs. Georgia in the SEC conference tournament. The officials properly penalized the play.

3. I have not personally called it nor seen it called, but have been told by some longtime veteran officials that the rule came into play to counter the actions of players such as Wilt Chamberlain and Lew Alcindor back in the late 50s and early 60s.

Lew would have been a bit young then, I think.

I would add that in Rule 9, both 9-11 (BI) and 9-12 (GT) share the exact same penalty section. The penalties do not differentiate between BI and GT in any way. They only differentiate between whether the violation is committed at "the opponent's basket" or "a team's own basket."

Edited to add: Better yet, this verbiage appears in the NFHS case book, Rule 9, right at the very beginning of the rule under the heading "Types of violations": When a team commits basket interference or goaltends at its own basket, no points can be scored and the ball is awarded to the offended team out of bounds at the spot nearest the violation.

NFHS 9.12 SITUATION A: On the first free throw by A1 in a bonus situation: B1 leaps above the lane and touches the ball but it falls in the basket anyway. RULING: Delayed lane violation on B1; the ball is still live. The goaltending violation causes an immediate dead ball and an automatic point for A1; B1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 is awarded the bonus free throw. Following the free throws for the technical foul, it is A’s ball for a division line throw-in opposite the table. (4-22; 6-7-9; 10-3-10)

How can a shot be errant and have a chance to go in at the same time?

Well he was a 17 yr old HS player in NY in 1965 according to this Time Magazine article.

Easy! Get an errant official to adjudge the errant shot. :cool:

Yeah, my age, but taller.

Just an observation, Dan.
Quite frequently when I make a post, you have some snide comment or half-question that contains the not-so-subtle connotation of a putdown.
You've done this on several occasions.
Do you lack self-esteem and somehow feel that you need to try to put someone else down to build yourself up?

You mean a poor official could judge it that way.

I agree.

Well, what if the shot is clearly just a little short? A shot that would otherwise have hit the rim, and maybe bounced in, or maybe not, could fairly easily be tapped hard enough to ensure that it made it over the rim and into the basket.

Yeah, that's it. I lack self esteem. I see that subscription to Psychology Today and Oprah's magazine are paying dividends. Good for you, money well spent.

But let's get back on topic: if a shot is errant how can you possibly judge it has a chance to go in?

errr... run that by us again.

If a shot is clearly short it's clearly not going in.

What's your point?

(pls forgive me if I seem less than charitable... I suffer with self-esteem issues)