Over and back?

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Not the same at all. Read the four requirements for a backcourt violation. Team A must be last to touch the ball in the front court, no exceptions. "Causation" is not part of this rule.

Mark I understand that fact, but with the twist Nevada put on the OP. Didn't A1s recovery become a last to touch in the fc while simultaneously gaining control in the bc situation?

I always thought if B (in the fc) tipped the ball towards the bc, A had to let the ball gain bc status (by actually striking the wood) then regain possession

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to get it right. And not right by personal philosophies, but how the Feds want it called.
Any casebook plays on this particular situation would be greatly appreciated?