[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Toren

I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. Ruling: in (a) it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the backcourt.

Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.

If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.

APG already posted the interp that applies directly to the OP. It trumphs "last to touch/first to touch". We discussed all last summer how the FED botched re-writing the TC rule in regards to throw-ins. Prior to last season the OP would not have been a BC violation. The FED put out correspondence stating BC violation rules were not affected by the new TC throw-in rules. Throw-in's and jump ball's have backcourt exceptions so you cannot extend 9.9.1 Sit C to them.