back court violation following an interrupted dribble?
 

A1 dribbling in the back court loses control of the ball. The ball bounces/rolls into the front court. A1 dives and recovers the loose ball but has a foot still touching the back court. Nothing or b/c violation?

Violation. During an interrupted dribble the three points rule does not apply, if that's what you're asking.

No. I'm having a brain cramp regarding 9-9-2 which I think is the applicable rule (While in player and team control in its back court, a player shall not cause the ball to go from back court>front court>back court . . .) However, during the interrupted dribble there is no player control. Even so, the ball went from back court>front court>back court all while there was team control. Maybe I'm distracted by the Browns game.

The ball has established front court status. Then, while touching the ball, the player location is in the backcourt (Rule 4.35.2) "...a player is touching the backcourt...the player is located in backcourt..." Violation-backcourt.

BC violation. Maintaining PC is not needed in order to violate.

Reminder ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

BktBallRef and I have debated this a couple of times and both sides have merit.
There is no PC, but the rules don't state that the dribble ends, so we have an unclear situation.

Interesting point. Are you saying that the dribble, although interupted, has not ended so both feet and the ball would need to be in the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status?

The OP stated "recovered loose ball", not "continued dribble of loose ball". I interpreted recovery as ending ones dribble. Since the ball has established front court status and the player is touching the backcourt, by rule as stated in other posts, backcourt violation.

Does that help?

Let me add: OP did not state "recovered loose ball while standing with foot/feet in backcourt". Presumed "dive" meant contacting floor with body other than feet.

I would say the dribble has not ended (therefore by rule the term "interrupted dribble"). If A1 were to get to the ball and continue the dribble, the interrupted dribble ends and the original dribble continues. But in the OP A1 dives on the floor and possesses the ball ending both the interrupted dribble and the original dribble. During the interrupted dribble I would think A1 is no longer a dribbler because certain rules no longer apply to the situation or to A1 that would apply if A1 was a dribbler. (See 4-15-6) And, as j.a.r. said, the 3 pts. issue would not apply either if A1 was not a dribbler. So, as I see it, we have a situation (interrupted dribble, no player control) but while in Team A control, the ball goes from the back court to the front court and then is touched by A1 whose location is in the back court which results in a violation. What has been confusing to me is the wording in Rule 9-9-2: "While in player and team control in the back court a player shall not cause the ball to go from the back court to the front court and return to the back court . . . Which seems to imply there must be both player and team control which is not the case in an interrupted dribble. To me, it would be more accurate if the wording said: "While in player or team control in the back court . . .

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

I think I agree here. The interrupted dribble stopped when the ball was possessed. Since the dribble ended and all three points weren't in the front court, I think its okay.

The three points rule in ball location section says "DURING a dribble from BC to FC...."

The definition of Dribble says "A dribble is ball movement CAUSED BY A PLAYER IN CONTROL...."

Even though it is called an "interrupted dribble", it is not, by definition, a DRIBBLE since there is no player control. The player has the right to resume the dribble (get player control back) but what is in between cant be a dribble under the definitions imo.

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

I agree with this. And, again, the fact that rules that would apply during a dribble do not apply during an interrupted dribble. Rule 4-15-6
a. no closely guarded count
b. no player control fouls
c. no time out requests granted
d. no out of bounds violations for the player involved