You know that is wrong, otherwise A1 in the backcourt can throw the ball off of A2's head who's in the frontcourt and catch the ball again in the backcourt.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Technically in the OP the team in control was the last to touch before and after since the touching of the ball changed the status from front to BC.

So to be a BC violation we have 2 things that MUST be true

1. Team in Control (TIC) must be the last to touch in the FC
AND
2. TIC must be the first to touch after ball has BC status

The key point is the status of the ball. The ball is still FC until it either bounces in the BC or makes contact with a player in the BC. So a player whose TIC of the ball cannot cause the ball to go from FC to BC status as they were not the first to touch AFTER gaining BC status but during the status change.

All fun and semantics but BEFORE and AFTER are very specific words.

No, it's a BC violation, I specified that team in control cannot be the last to touch in the FC. I was referencing Adam's scenario where the team in control did not yet establish FC status.

They are very specific words: one event cannot occur both before and after a separate event. A3 catching the ball is one event. Last to touch is a separate event. First to touch is yet a third event.

The rule is clear as day.

I ask again, my altered play, what is your basis for not calling that a violation?

Read his response again. If PC is required in the FC (it is not, by rule), then BNR's play would also not be a violation.

Here is the wording

"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball AFTER it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC BEFORE it went to the BC"

I'm making this more complicated that it should be. I wouldn't call this a BC violation since it is confusing, however I do see rule support to be able to make the call.

I would encourage an official to not go that route as it's just to darn confusing.

I used to be on this side of the argument that it was a violation, but I've come around to the dark side, also known as agreeing with Adam.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

It can be a difficult adjustment for some.

Four criteria...
 

That interpretation is so stupid and it causes so many arguments on this forum. Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation.

1) TRUE team control established by a player gaining control at some point (not necessarily in the FC)
2) Ball gains FC status
3) Team A is the last to touch in the FC
4) Team A is the first to touch in the BC

9.9.1 SITUATION E:

A1 inbounds the ball at the division line; A2 jumps from the frontcourt, controls the ball in the air, and while still in the air passes it to A3, who is in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation.

COMMENT: The throw-in exception only applies to the player initially receiving the throw-in pass (first touch). Since the throw-in has ended, all backcourt rules apply. Had A2 just landed in the backcourt, there would have been no violation. (9-9-3)

Nice cite, but I don't see what it has to do with this play.

Which is kinda the point of the Forum. It's all good.