If that were true, then a "touched loose ball" on a throw-in would have the same exception -- as was once debated vociferously on here. The NFHS made it clear that wasn't the case. There's only a "defense" if one team is in control. If neither team is in control, then there's no offense nor defense (at least for this rule).

I agree it *shouldn't* be a violation, but I think it is.

Offense ...
 

The moment you "grab" (hold, possess) a rebound, you're on offense. I can't imagine a player holding a ball being thought of as anything other than on offense.

Now, the split second before you "grab" (hold, possess) it, that's another story because there's no team control (it's a rebound so there must have been a shot and a loss of team control before the "grab" (hold, possess).

I do not know how you have a violation? I get that they said this was an exception for the defense, but anyone can get a rebound and we do not have the same rules. I would only change my mind with a case play or interpretation.

Peace

Shakespeare 's Hamlet On The Forum, Classy ...
 

I believe that the debate here is about the defense exception, and whether, or not, it applies to this exact situation, especially if, or if not, considering intent and purpose.

Since this situation is not the "classic" defensive mid-air steal of a mid-air pass (assuming nobody's on offense or defense during a try), let's, for just now, forget about the defense exception, pretend that it never existed in the rulebook.

Then it comes down to whether or not the situation checks off all four components of a backcourt violation.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation here are: there must be team control; 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.

I believe that all four components of a backcourt violation have been met.

But in the real world, there is a defense exception and there is intent and purpose.

9-9-3 Backcourt: While on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

Does this specific situation meet the criteria for the 9-9-3 defense exception?

No, because nobody's on offense or defense during a try (no team control) and the exception clearly states "while on defense". It doesn't say "while not on offense"

However, was the intent and purpose of the defense exception rule to allow such a situation as this one to be interpreted as a legal play?

Ay, there's the rub.