Over and back?
 

A1 is dribbling the ball in the frontcourt very close to the division line. A1 picks up her dribble and B1 closes in. As A1 is trying to pass the ball B1 taps the ball free from A1 in the air and the ball is out of her posession for a half second. As A1 pivots to catch the ball, her left foot in the frontcourt, she has her right foot in the air. She regains control of the ball and then her right foot lands in the backcourt. Is this a violation?

Yes

Yes.

A1 caused the ball to be in team control in the FC. A1 caused the ball to go into the BC and was first to touch the ball giving it BC status.

I thought so!
 

I had this play last night and I called a violation. Just wanted to make sure I had it correct as I am a new official.

But if A1 puts her right foot down in the backcourt prior to catching the ball, I'm not penalizing her no matter what that silly Interp #10 says. :D

I'm thinking you're just kidding... but by rule it's still a violation, correct?

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

Uh oh. Here we go...

And this is why the "silly interp" comment was made. According to the interpretation, this is, indeed, a violation.

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first OOB, then catches the ball...
who caused it go OOB?

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.

Cause is a valid concept in OOB. Cause is not a valid concept in the backcourt violation. Last to touch, first to touch. No cause involved.

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 :confused:

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?

You understand correctly according to the stupid interpretation. Most disagree with this ruling, because A1 never touches a ball with frontcourt status - the instant he/she touches the ball, it has backcourt status.

Agreed.

A1 was not the last to touch it BEFORE it goes into the backcourt....B was.