No, no, no, no, no. This is not a BC violation. There was no team control when the ball bounced in the FC.

nine01c,
I think Lotto's play is not referring to a throwin, but the ball is already inbounds.
"Inbounds" here is an adjective, not a verb. :D

I read it the same way you did, the first time.

I think you misread Lotto's play. The pass originated from a player holding the ball inbounds...not a throwin.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. This is a BC violation. A1 threw the ball from a location inbounds in the backcourt. If A1 threw the ball, he had player and team control on the throw.

If you read the inbounds as a verb then A1 was what A2 caught. Hope A1 was not too heavy.

Yes, it is a violation; but there is also team control established in the front court, even if there was never player control established in the front court.

Good job, Snaqwells.
Lotto, you're also incorrect on this statement: "The ball never has frontcourt status here." JLC specified, "Before he picked it up it bounced once in his frontcourt."
In NFHS play the ball has a status of its own if a player is not holding or dribbling it. 4-4-3

You're right...I misread the original play. (I thought *he* bounced the ball in the frontcourt, not *it* bounced in the frontcourt.)

My error. His description made it sound like a throw-in to me, which would seem like a legit interp to me.

What if team A has possession, ball is tipped by B2 hit's A1's leg goes back court, A2 retrieve's it? or team A in control, both A2 & B2 deflect the ball backcourt, & A2 retrieves it? thanks!

In your first scenario, it's a violation.

In the second, if both players' touched it simultaneously, I would call a violation. But I've never read a specific inerp on such a play.