I am not addressing you specifically Mr. Snaqwells, just using your post.

Is this "advantage" available to either team following a try?

Great I learned something...now with the inbounds play. It all depends on the status of the player (airborne or not airborne)....got it now...if airborne they can land normally, if not airborne then the court status is just like anything else, in and out of bounds, behind the arc or in front etc....

Got it...thanks.

Think of it this way. FC and BC are only in existence when there's team control. When a defensive player is airborne, and catches the ball, he didn't have team control when he left the floor, so there wasn't any FC when he left the floor, so he's just establishing team control when he lands. He hasn't carried the ball from FC to BC, because he didn't have FC status when he left the floor.

And you can apply the same logic to the throw-in. No team control until the player lands, so no FC or BC status until the player lands.

This is a point of contention. I'm going off memory here, but the rule states, "a player whose team is not in control (on defense, during a throwin, or during a jump ball)…may jump and…."

Whether this applies to a player on a shot depends on whether you think this freedom extends after the throwin ends but before player/team control is established. The debate is whether the examples in parentheses are all inclusive, or meant as mere examples of when a player's team isn't in control.
Example: A1 releases the pass on a throwin, which is then tipped into the air by A2. A3 jumps from the FC to secure the ball and lands in the BC. Here is where some officials differ on the interepretation of this rule.

I'd have to say that a tip doesn't mean team control and is therefore not a violation....we discussed this play at length with 6 officials after a tournament game and we came to that consensus....

I didn't put words in your mouth. I just asked you a question. You wrote, "If the player had control of the ball while in the front court and then went into the back I would call a violation." You say nothing about him being airborne or on the floor, so we're just supposed to assume you know the difference?

No one argues that team control exists at this point. The debate is whether the "exception" continues once the throwin is over. IOW, is the exception granted every time there's no team control, or only during the three specified examples.

Snaqwells - you're right that the throw-in has ended in this situation. However, no team control has been established. Therefore, no violation - no matter where the player takes off from and lands.

Think of what happens on a jump ball. Just because a jumper touches the ball doesn't mean that the backcourt exception has ended. Nor does it end when a non-jumper grabs the ball, as long as he's in the air (even though the jump ball would end at that point).

I know the throw-in is over when touched on the court, but I mentioned "team control" because there can't be a violation when team control was never established.

I threw this out before a college game...same exact scenario as Snaqwells stated with the tip....and we know in college there is team control on a thrown in....but the exception of the backcourt violation on a thrown in takes precedence there as well, according to the officials I was with that evening....meaning no violation on a tip by A into the backcourt which is then recovered by A.

The problem with that is that the rule says there's no violation for a player whose team is not in control during a jump ball or throw-in.

Since the touch ends the throw-in, some people claim that the exception is no long valid.

I understand what you're saying but how are you going to call a backcourt violation if there is no team-control established. What about below...

What if A1 (inbounding the ball) throws it toward A2 in As backcourt. B1, playing defense, bats the ball into As frontcourt and it is retrieved by B2....according to the other posts, no violation on B because they aren't penalized for their spot on the floor.

If the reverse happens, inbounds to A2 in As frontcourt and batted to As backcourt and A2 retrieves? Some are saying that's a violation?

These scenarios don't involve airborne players like this post started out but both are making point about how I think the inbounding portion of this rule means until their is team control....which maybe should be clarified in the rules/case book.

Agreed you didn't. My apology. Your sarcasm and insinuation that I am a complete dolt who knows nothing about the game or officiating is duely noted. If I have given any indication in previous posts that I deserved this then so be it. I don't post false information or missleading interpretations, and as I noted above did not clarify my OP very well.

Thanks

Mark, I agree with you. I'm only saying there is a significantly sized group of officials who don't. The argument is that the parenthetical items in the allowance are all-inclusive, and that the allowance no longer applies once the throwin or jump ball is over, even if player control has not yet been established.
Adam

So what do you make of #26......I think you and I and other on here say no violation....does the other group feel that both are violations...???

The argument goes:
Once the ball is tipped, the throwin is over, so the exception no longer applies. Therefore, once A2 catches the ball, he has established player control. If his last position was in the FC, then that's where the ball is. By landing in the BC, he commits a violation.
This isn't a violation because team/player control was not established until the player is holding the ball in the backcourt. In the debated scenario, PC gets established by an airborne player who was last in the FC but lands in the BC. There is an allowance in the rules for this, but the debate is over when that allowance ends.