I like this point. There seemed like a directed flick of the wrist in order to propel that ball across the court, but yet again, if the division line isn't a factor here and she tracks down the ball, I'm not sure I have the courage to put air in my whistle for a violation. I'm unabashedly torn about this one.

I like this counterpoint, too.

This is one of those cases where, if I'm an evaluator, I don't think I'm going to get upset over either possible outcome. This is about as 50/50 as it gets.

Let's be honest here -- none of us who work any reasonable level of hoops puts a whistle on every technical carrying violation. We'd call 20 of them a game and be sentenced to a neverending diet of freshman B girls games. Rather, we call it when the ball handler uses that carry to gain an advantage, despite what some say about "not using advantage/disadvantage on violations."

So whether I'd call a carry if the player continued a dribble after securing the ball means diddly to me. However, she ended the dribble, albeit briefly, and used that to propel/direct the ball to the backcourt. This is why I see a violation here and wouldn't hesitate to call one.

The fact that the ball may never have left the backcourt doesn't matter? I don't feel the official has a good angle on the play either. To me he is playing a guessing game which is why play on to me is fine.

Of course it matters. If it never left the backcourt, then it can't be a violation. Note that the ball itself need not touch the frontcourt to have (by rule) a frontcourt location.

I agree with the call.

Backcourt ...
 

Also agree. It was a pass, not a dribble, so the three point (foot, foot, ball) rule doesn't apply here. The instant she threw the pass, both of her feet were in the frontcourt, giving the ball frontcourt status.

Bump.

I think the dribble ends when time expires. ;)

I'd say the common sense one where she didn't dribble again.