Case Book 9-9-1 Sit. D

[RushmoreRef]

Don't know if anyone remembers (or cares) but we had a lengthy discussion last March regarding this play and even got an explanation from Struckoff about this. As a result we got a new definition of when a throw-in ends it clarified some of it (see newly added 9-9-1D). Notice her interpretation of the casebook play, exactly as it was written last year. It's the opposite of what the case book says this year.

(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court.
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.

Struckoff Answer last year: No violation, play on. The provision in 9-9-3 permits the play.
Team control is established when A2 gains possession and lands in the
backcourt.

Casebook this year - Backcourt violation on A. Throw-in ends on touch by B1, A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A's frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status.

Question for me is what if the exact same thing happens but by B2?

(

2) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team
B's frontcourt).
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
B2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.

Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?