A1 shoots air ball that is unsuccesfully rebounded by A2 who forces the ball to the floor sending it on a high bounce OB; A3 attempting to retrieve OB ball with one hand throws the ball into team A's backcourt; A4 is first to touch the ball in the backcourt.

3 Man mechanics, varsity game, 2nd quarter, team A ahead by 15+; T is table side, C is opposite; T makes no call; C makes backcourt call; throw in made at a division line balls in play and coach asks nearest official who is T becoming new L for explanation; new L stops play runs over to ask C for explanation; C explains team control still in the frontcourt despite missed shot; C wants to assess coach a time out; new T says no let's go; we go; half time we deliberate; postgame C pulls out rule 9-9; still unsettled will talk over at next meeting.

But before this next meeting, I humbly ask; what say ye lord's of the game?

Did you not answer your own question??? A2 rebounded the ball, which would be team control wouldn't it??? therefore would still be in team control when A3 saves it and throws it back court, which leads to Back Court violation when retrieved by A4!!! my opinion!! Been wrong before.. :)

Hmmmm...A2's Unsuccessful rebound attempt where ball is slapped or knocked to the floor doesn't necessarily constitute control. However, A3's one handed save if he was able to control the ball headed OOB and pass it back into the court might. I think this is one of those you'd have to see.....

agreed. I am not sure what the confusion is, (probably my thick skull)team A has maintained team control, was the last to touch in frontcourt, first to touch in backcourt. I would see myself ruling a violation.

If A3 "held" the ball, team control was established by A3 establishing player control (holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds). Team control was lost when A1 took the shot, A2 batting it didn't reestablish it. It's a judgment call as to whether A3's grip while throwing is considered holding it. If it came to rest in his hand, you could claim "yes". If he just batted it, you could claim "no".

This is a play on in my mind. I am not ruling that A3 had control if he is flying through the air and swats the ball with one hand. And if he didn't have control there was no team control established since the shot caused team control to evaporate. I think this is similar to the situation where a player catching a pass bats it to the floor, then catches it with two hands, then dribbles it. No double dribble, because a muff is not control.

We discussed and determined it was a judgment call by C; who maintains a new impetus was placed upon outbound ball by A3 by throwing the ball and not batting. Seems it shouldn't matter; since new impetus whether batting or not.

The ball went out on L or endline on C primary side of coverage; no reason to quesion why C had eye on ball; but would have looked awkward for L to call backcourt; can't say T could have called it either.

Appreciate a rule reference for team control ceasing after a shot and any other examples pertinent to loss of team control besides the throw in from OB.

For what it's worth, I believe this is a backcourt violation. The save was a catch and throw with one hand. It is not likely that a mere bat could cause the ball to go all the way to the back court. The C saved the crew here.

The team control rule reference you need is 4-12-1,2,+3.
Art. 1...A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper, or during an interrupted dribble.
Art. 2...A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates and during an interrupted dribble.
Art. 3...Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

I am no lord of the game (maybe a clown prince), MO: The backcourt call looks like a "you had to be there" situation. However, the unglue process would have really started to go if you had charged the coach with a timeout to explain a violation. This certainly does not fall under 2.10 nor 5.11.3. Unless the coach is John Wooden, I don't stop the clock and the explanation is done on the fly or as an aside at the next dead ball.

Seems like A3 "throws the ball..." indicates control. Done deal.

Without seeing it, my first reaction is that Nevada and Forks have it right.

By definition, possession is the ability to pass, dribble, or shoot the ball, if b3 was able to catch it oob in the air and throw it to b4, possession was established. Good call by C

That might be your definition of possession but it ain't the rule book's definition of possession. You also have to define between player and team possession. You can pass or shoot the ball by "tipping" it, and the act of "tipping" is not player possession. You can also have an interrupted dribble without player possession. Player possession is a player actually either holding or dribbling the ball.

Don't forget, it must be a live ball and the player must be inbounds. Using the term "player control" as stated in the rulebook helps to define it.

I believe you contradicted your statement by saying that was not the definition. Maybe not textbook by your standards, POSSESSION, is where you can either shoot, pass or dribble the ball, everyone knows a tap can be either a pass or a shot, but I dont think anyone included that in the scenario, and we're talking possession, not tap.