Backcourt violation?
 

A1 attempts an dunk, the dunk is unsuccessful, ball rebounds off back of rim towards midcourt where A2 catches ball with both feet off the ground where he lands his first foot in the front court and the second in the backcourt.

I post the rule here, the exception is only for jump ball, throw in and while on defense.

ART. 3... During a jump ball, throw-in or 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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

Wonky sitch, but apparently a BCV as per your rulebook citation.

Backcourt ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); 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.

Check. Check. Check. Check.

Look both ways for an exception. None. Check.

Liftoff.

I have no violation. The player secured control in the air and can land. Yes, the rule doesn't enumerate that exact scenario, but I believe that is what is intended by "defense"...a team that doesn't have the team control gets the team control.

Bang Bang Play ...
 

It would probably happen so fast in a real game that I wouldn't have time to go through my mental backcourt checklist and I would end up allowing it as an unapproved exception.

On the other hand, on a written test ...

Team control no longer existed once A1 releases the ball on the dunk attempt (a "try"), and team control was not established until A2, while in the air, caught the ball. If, as I read the OP, A2 then lands with both feet simultaneously, one foot in the front court and the other in the back court, both A2 and the ball have backcourt status, but the offense would not be "last to touch" in the front court while in team control (BillyMac's third factor), which ended on the try.

I don't see it as an exception, written or unwritten, but the application of the rule consistent with the intent and purpose of the rule. I would have no violation--but I would begin a 10-second count.

You Are Where You Were ...
 

Wouldn't that instantly give the ball frontcourt status?

You are where you were until you get where you're going.

I'm not going to die on this violation hill, but would appreciate some further investigation and discussion.

Since it's not one of the listed exceptions (if we, for sake of argument, disregard purpose and intent), can we concentrate on the "by rule" definition of backcourt.

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.

The key to a proper interpretation here lies with the frontcourt/backcourt status of the ball when it's caught (holding the ball means player control and thus team control).

Did the ball achieve frontcourt status while in Team A control?

4-35: The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the person is touching the floor as far as being: In the frontcourt or backcourt. The location of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

4-4: A ball which is in contact with a player is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player is touching the backcourt. A ball which is in contact with a player is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

In the OP, we don't know from where A2 jumping into the air to catch the ball, front or back. Nonetheless, let's change the facts slightly.

A1 shoots, B1 grabs the rebound and throws a long outlet to B2 at midcourt. A2, in his/her front court, jumps, intercepts/catches the pass, and lands with one foot in his/her front court and the other in the backcourt.

If you are arguing that A2 catching the ball while airborne from the front court gives the ball front court status, so that it's a BCV when he/she lands, I don't think the rules are meant to be applied that way. One of the many unforeseen glitches in the rules, perhaps.

Exception ...
 

Nit picking, but a great point. And we all know what Felix Unger always tells us about assuming (young'uns can check it out on the Google).

It does give him frontcourt status but it's not a backcourt violation due to the "defense" backcourt rule exception.

9-9-3 Backcourt: During a jump ball, throw-in or 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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

And Thank You For Your Support (Bartles And Jaymes, 1981)
 

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.U...=0&w=169&h=162

If anybody believes that this is not a backcourt violation due to the purpose and intent of the rules (likening it to the defense steal exception), I'll be your Yoko Ono (apologies to Barenaked Ladies (1992)).

But by rule ...

Here's a nitpicking question for you, BillyMac: At the moment you grab a long rebound at midcourt, are you on offense or defense? Neither?

You always want absolute clarity, but there are always new and/or different facts, and we have to apply the rules consistent with their intent. Isn't that one reason why the backcourt exception was clarified?

The old wording of the rule contained a phrase similar to “a player from a team not in control.” That wording permitted this play, however that part of the exception went away with the change to the text.

So you don’t think that a player holding the ball in the front court near the division line violates if he pivots and steps onto the division line?

The elements of team control, status of the ball, last to touch, and first to touch are all the same in that situation as in the one given by the OP (with the clarification that A2 jumps from his front court to catch the rebound).

Best Offense, Good Defense ...
 

Another good point. There definitely is no team control. So how do statisticians and announcers (which have nothing to do with our job on the court) distinguish between offensive and defensive rebounds? Maybe (again not our issue) they lean on this:

4-4-3: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

When we can't identify the defense, then we can't use, by rule, the defense exception.

But maybe we can interpret by purpose and intent?

Agree, as long as one notes that the interpretation is based on purpose and intent and not on the actual written rule.

It would be nice to have a caseplay, or an annual interpretation on this.

Check that, just a caseplay, many annual interpretations don't make their way into the rulebook or casebook and we all know the myriad of problems that causes.

Nevadaref, your question to me is not the situation we're talking about.